The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly Business: Exclusion Motion

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. A motion was submitted to the Business Office to be considered by the Business Committee at its last meeting for inclusion on the Order Paper for today or tomorrow. It was in the form of an exclusion motion. I understand that the Business Committee dealt with this matter in a peculiar manner — it chose to make up a new rule. That rule is not supported by the Standing Orders and it goes beyond the scope of the legislation. It sets more rigorous conditions on a motion being brought to the House than was envisaged by either the legislation or the Standing Orders. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 indicates that
"A motion for a resolution under this section shall not be moved unless … it is supported by at least 30 members of the Assembly."
The fact that it says that it "shall not be moved" indicates a process after it has been included on an Order Paper — not before.
It is fairly clear that a precedent was set on two previous occasions when a motion was put down on the Order Paper without the 30 signatures and that you, Mr Speaker, allowed it to be tested. That seems to be the appropriate way for it to be dealt with. There are serious legal issues involved, and precedents could be set by this "off the hip" decision by the Business Committee, which seems to have been taken for political purposes.
I have to say on political grounds that it seems rather peculiar that on the day that the Chief Constable announced that the IRA was involved in a killing —

Mr Speaker: Order. The point of order has been well expressed and to go further would be to engage in a speech on the matter.
The Business Committee has received a significant number of motions which are on the no-day-named list, two of which are, to my knowledge, on exclusion. The decision that neither of them had achieved a sufficient level of support to enable them to be brought forward by the Business Committee then was perfectly valid given our Standing Orders. It was not a question of whether a motion on exclusion would be on the Order Paper; it was a matter of when and if there was support.
The reference that the Member made to how things were done previously was, of course, to a time when it was not the democratic decision of the Business Committee that counted, but the benign dictatorship of the Speaker. That he speaks of that time in positive, nostalgic terms I take as a compliment, even though it is not justified as such. What has happened is entirely in order and legal. The motion is on the no-day-named list, along with others for consideration. It would be wrong for me to comment on any decision of the Business Committee, save to say that the minutes of the Committee’s meeting become available publicly once they have been approved by the Committee.

Mr Peter Robinson: I would be happy for my party to meet you to take this matter further because you have missed several important points. During the period between the initial Standings Orders and our present ones no change was made which would allow this decision by the Business Committee. Furthermore, there is nothing in the legislation that requires the Business Committee to set this criterion down.

Mr Speaker: I have made my ruling. I do not consider what you have said as a challenge but as a request that we meet to discuss this outside the confines of the Chamber. I am happy to do that as we have done so on previous occasions. The ruling nevertheless stands: the decision was in order.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Further to my Colleague’s point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it be in order for you to confirm that this action by the Business Committee was taken at the behest of the Ulster Unionist Party to protect Sinn Féin?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member is entirely aware that that was not a point of order. Indeed, the point was a quite improper one.

University Research: Funding

Mr Speaker: I have received only one indication that a Minister wants to make a statement at this sitting. The Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment will make a statement on the support programme for university research, after which we will have up to 45 minutes for questions on it.

Dr Sean Farren: I should like to make a statement on the funding of research at Queen’s University and the University of Ulster.
I am delighted to come before the Assembly today to announce the support programme for university research — a public-private partnership designed to enhance the strategic approach of the universities to the development of their research capacity, to strengthen the research base in both main universities and, in particular, to increase the amount of research that is of the highest international standard.
I am convinced of the importance of the university research base to the regional economy and to our economic prospects. This was made very clear in the recently published Northern Ireland Economic Council’s report, and it is a central theme of ‘Strategy 2010’.
That report recognises that university research and development is essential for the future economic well-being of Northern Ireland. Indeed, successful regional economies elsewhere all bear testimony to the importance of a strong research base.
A strengthened research base in Northern Ireland will result in significant contributions to our social, cultural and economic life and will add to our universities’ international reputations.
I have listened to the comments of the vice-chancellors of Queen’s University and the University of Ulster about the reduction in their research infrastructure funding over recent years, which has contrasted with what has been happening to peer institutions in Britain and the rest of Ireland. I am aware of the implications for the universities in terms of attracting and retaining staff and sustaining and developing research work of high quality. I am also aware that the universities have been working extremely hard to improve their performances in research as evidenced by the research assessment exercise. The significant research achievements of both universities were recognised in the last research assessment exercise. We now wish to give both universities every support in building on and adding to these achievements.
With all this in mind, I announce the support programme for university research (SPUR). The programme will run from 2000-04 and will lead to the investment of up to an additional £40million in the research infrastructure of Queen’s University and the University of Ulster. The Government are willing to invest up to £20million of this funding over the four-year period and invite the universities to raise matching funding from private sources pound for pound.
This investment will be made on a competitive basis. I have asked the Northern Ireland Higher Education Council to administer the programme and competition, assisted by an international panel of experts, which is currently being drawn together. The universities will be asked to submit their institutional strategic plans and proposals for research by the autumn of this year, and decisions will be made on funding by November. The vice-chancellors will be asked to confirm that they have raised privately the matching funding for their successful proposals before the public funding is released.
The intention is that the additional investment will enable the universities to fund the highest priorities within their strategic plans which are judged by the panel to be of or to be capable of attaining an international level of quality. This may include expenditure on appropriate buildings and equipment or on research teams or other facilities.
This is a prime example of my desire to proceed in partnership with the universities, and I have every confidence that they will come forward with projects which are of the highest quality and will benefit our whole society. This provides both institutions with the opportunity to invest in their highest priority areas and to broaden the base of their international-level research.
I am delighted to announce this programme. It confirms my, and the Executive Committee’s, faith in the universities and in the contribution they make to regional life. It is also clear evidence of the Executive’s determination to secure viable forward-looking and sustainable economic development. The Executive will shortly announce a package of measures which it hopes to achieve over the next 12months. I am glad to announce that this programme will be part of that package.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I am sure that I speak on behalf of my Committee’s members when I welcome this announcement. There are, however, three points that need clarification.
First, is the Minister aware that, even if the full £40million, half of which depends on the private sector, is realised, there will still be a considerable shortfall in Northern Ireland university-based research and development given what is happening in universities in other regions, its competitors?
I base that argument on the fact that according to the Northern Ireland Economic Council’s report of late last year total research and development spending in Northern Ireland — and I am looking at its estimates — represented 1·1% of GDP, compared to 1·4% in the Republic of Ireland. And it was by no means a high performer in European terms. Furthermore, that report indicated that we have the lowest amount per capita of university-based research and development of any region in the United Kingdom, and it estimated that there was an annual shortfall, given the trends in the 1990s in university-based core research and development, of roughly £8·5million.
That is the first point on which I require clarification. Does the Minister recognise that this is a welcome first step but only a first step?
Secondly, the Minister referred to the mechanism whereby money will be —

Mr Speaker: Members are meant to put individual and concise questions. I appeal to the Member and those who follow him to be concise.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Will the Minister confirm that the mechanism for the delivery of money represents the right balance between achievement of international excellence and meeting locally identified research needs?
Thirdly, will the Minister confirm that there needs to be co-ordination on the research and development effort his Department has some responsibility and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has some? Indeed all Departments have some responsibility for this. It is par excellence a cross-cutting issue requiring further co-ordination from the Centre.

Dr Sean Farren: I thank the Member for the questions and for his words of welcome for my announcement.
I realise that we have a lot of leeway to make up and, in his words, he is accepting that this is a first step towards that. I hope that it is the first of many. I do accept comparisons with other regions. Comparisons with the Republic of Ireland are fairly pertinent, but we have to bear in mind that while significant increases have been recorded there in investment in research and development, they are coming from a lower base. The degree of affluence which is now available to the Government there for research and development is something which is quite novel and quite recent. However, we have to continue to seek additional funding. The universities themselves accept their responsibility, and in becoming involved with us in this particular programme they are clearly recognising that responsibility, especially given that this is a matching funding programme.
With respect to the mechanism that is to be employed in deciding on the projects and proposals that will come forward, I am satisfied that it will achieve the right balance. Research projects which are directed at the local situation should meet, and I have every confidence that they will meet, the highest international standards. There should be no reason for the projects put forward and funded under this programme not being ones that will enhance, as I said in my statement, the international reputations of both universities while the projects themselves may be directed at local needs. I trust that there will be lessons from the outcome of the research supported in other parts of the world as well.
With respect to the need for co-ordination, I should point out that when the Northern Ireland Economic Council’s report was published, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, under Sir Reg Empey, and my Department met and decided to examine its implications of that report for improvements in the research and development structure, and a report is imminent from the two Departments — a joint report. When that is available I will put it before the Committee for wider discussion.
The co-ordination which that report called for is something we have in mind, and we will be acting on that as soon as possible.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: I welcome the Minister’s statement. The sum of £5million per year, £2·5million of which will come from the public purse, is modest, but very welcome. I trust that the expenditure will be very clearly and properly focused on those areas of need within the university research and development programme. As our Chairman indicated, the research and development sector is vital in promoting the Northern Ireland economy. However, can the Minister assure me that his announcement will have no adverse impact on funding for general research and development in universities? Can he assure me that there will be no let up, and no taking the foot off the pedal, in relation to funding for basic, but very important, research and development? Research and development needs substantial investment, and the announcement does not close the funding gap.
How does the Minister intend to sustain this type of investment, particularly when we find ourselves operating in a very competitive global economy? It is vital that we have some indication of what further funding will be made available as a follow on to this announcement.

Dr Sean Farren: I can reassure the Member that this is additional funding which will not impact negatively, as his question might suggest it will, on the regular funding from my Department to the universities. Obviously, with a programme such as this, which will provide additional funding for four years, we would expect, with the universities, to find the means of extending the period beyond that. At the moment, we can give no commitment about any such extension, but the matter will be kept under review.
Members need to bear in mind that there is a significant annual provision for research and development in the universities, and they have been very successful in attracting funding from many sources apart from the public purse. We encourage them to continue with their endeavours in that regard. We will keep the matter under review, but the specific announcement today will provide a significant contribution over four years.

Mr John Dallat: This announcement could not come at a better time for NorthernIreland, and it may well be the key to unlocking the future inward investment which is so necessary to illustrate that this Assembly works. Is it recognition of an underfunding of research in our universities?

Dr Sean Farren: Universities, and indeed the Department itself, have recognised the need for additional funding. I acknowledged what the vice-chancellors of both universities have said about the funding for research in their respective institutions in the past decade, and our proposal is a significant additional contribution. I trust that it will enhance the reputation of Northern Ireland in the eyes of those who are thinking of investing in this part of the world.
We already know that Northern Ireland has attracted much recent investment because of the reputation of our educational institutions, not least their reputation in research and development. It is recognised that other successful regional economies reflect the significance of a strong research base. The enhancement of that would undoubtedly add to our appeal for inward investment, particularly in high-tech industries which need the support of research and development in universities and other institutions.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. I welcome the Minister’s statement in addressing the serious matter of research and development.
How will the Minister’s initiative impact on or assist small and medium-sized enterprises? How will it fit in with the universities’ assessment of the matching funds? For a small, struggling firm to put its own money into research and development must be a very low priority. Does the Minister believe that this mechanism will facilitate small-and medium-sized enterprises to tap into as well as contribute to it?
In view of press statements yesterday about Walsh visas and the concerns expressed about the quality and conditions of the training programme for young people in the United States, will the Minister make a statement?

Dr Sean Farren: The second part of that question is not germane to the statement that I made this morning. I am aware of the issues regarding the Walsh visas and I shall consider making a statement, as I am concerned by what I have read in the press.
In answer to the first part of the Member’s question, in devising proposals to be submitted under this programme, the universities will be encouraged to take account of the needs of small-and medium-sized businesses, and I look forward to their doing that. They are already engaged in helping to develop many small-and medium-sized enterprises. However, it is not for the Department, or for me as a Minister, to determine how the money should be allocated. An international panel will be established, which will adjudicate on the proposals from the universities. Given all that has been said, and particularly the Northern Ireland Economic Council’s report on the importance of research and development for our economy, we can take it that those needs will be borne in mind. As the proposals develop and are submitted, that need will be reflected.

Mrs Eileen Bell: New money for any sector of education is always welcome. My question is similar to those of others about the sustainability of this programme. Can the Minister assure the House that there will be value for money in the job-creation potential for young people? Will it, as one hopes, enhance the long-term development of new industries like the high-tech ones he mentioned? Has there been any discussion about co-operation on the sources of the matching funding?

Dr Sean Farren: I should like to start with the second part of the question. First, Members can take it that the programme has been developed through discussions with the universities, and while it is obviously their responsibility to ensure that matching funding is provided, we can at this point be confident that this will be the case. The universities will discharge their responsibility and ensure that matching funding is secured. However, the details of that are essentially a matter for the universities themselves to address. My Department is playing its part by declaring what we can make available, as is evident from my statement.
Regarding the first part of the question, while it is not possible to say with certainty at this point what the precise benefit of research will be to the economy, it is the understanding of the Department and myself that the universities intend to submit proposals which will make a beneficial contribution. However, I should like to stress in answering this question that the fund is not purely for economic development. It will also be available for projects in social sciences, humanities and the arts. As well as making significant contributions to our economic development, it is also appropriate that contributions be made across all aspects of our social and cultural life.

John Taylor: The Minister is to be congratulated from all sides of the House on his statement on research in our universities. I hope that it will go some small way towards closing the gap between the funding for research granted to universities here and that granted to those elsewhere in the Kingdom.
Does the Minister agree that investment in research is important when promoting universities internationally? I recently discovered in south-east Asia that both Queen’s University and the University of Ulster are very highly regarded. Regrettably, Queen’s was not complimented for following up its presentations in the same way that the University of Ulster does. Does the Minister agree that there should be investment abroad to attract more international students to our universities in Northern Ireland?
Secondly, can the Minister say whether the independent panel of experts has already been appointed? Thirdly, can he say if he expects any of this funding to be allocated before the end of the calendar year? Finally, can he assure us that, although it will be awarded on a competitive basis, not all of the £20million will go to one university?

Dr Sean Farren: Which university does the Member have in mind? I should like to reassure him on the question of which university will receive money. I trust that both universities will be in receipt of substantial funding under this programme. Theoretically, it is possible that all of it might go to one, but it is highly unlikely, and both universities, as Members may be aware, have significantly improved their contributions to research of an international standard.
The Member is quite right to relay the impression that he has brought back from south-east Asia to us of the reputation of both institutions. I am very aware that they have worked very hard to attract students both at undergraduate level and at postgraduate level, where, of course, our researchers will be found. For a long time many students have come to both universities from south-east Asia, and I have every confidence that the universities will continue to enhance their reputations there and across the world. Both universities now have links which stretch east, west, north and south in their research enterprises.
I have addressed the first part of the question, that mentioned the significance of research and the panel in several of my previous answers. A strong research and development base is extremely important for our future economic well-being. My statement said that the international panel is in the course of being put together. Its membership has not yet been finalised, but it will be a small panel consisting of members with international reputations who are well capable of adjudicating on the proposals from the universities. With respect to the point about expenditure this calendar year, my statement did indicate that the allocations will be made in November, and we hope to meet that target.

Mr Joe Byrne: I congratulate the Minister on this very appropriate and timely announcement. Does he agree that there is a great need for more collaboration between our two universities and those companies in Northern Ireland who want to be at the forefront of research and development locally and who want to be economically successful in the future?

Dr Sean Farren: Yes. If Members examine the annual reports of both universities they will find several examples, across the disciplines, of university researchers working with local enterprises in supportive and developmental ways. Today’s announcement can only enhance that. The universities are taking tremendous strides towards ensuring that they have a research base of the highest standard, which is recognised not only throughout these islands but internationally as well. Both institutions have also demonstrated that they are entering into co-operative endeavours.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Everyone will welcome the funds available for university research. However, I would like to press the Minister a little more about this international panel. He says that it will be a small panel. How many members does he envisage? What does he mean by "small"? Which countries will these international panellists come from? How much money will be spent on the panel? Ordinary men and women have a suspicion that far too much is spent on administration and not enough on the actual research. He should keep this in mind, so that people will know that most of the money available is spent on doing the actual job.

Dr Sean Farren: I thank the Member for his questions. I can assure him that expenditure on administration will be kept strictly to the minimum required for responsibilities to be discharged. The panel is likely to consist of five members with two local non-voting members and the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Higher Education Council, currently Sir Kenneth Bloomfield. The panel will be international because we want to satisfy ourselves that the funded projects will be ones that stand the test of peer review across the university field and that they will thereby be regarded as being of considerable significance. The individuals who will be part of that panel have not yet been finally determined. Rest assured that they will be people of repute. Expenditure will be the minimum necessary to ensure that the job is effectively done, and I look forward to the panel’s being established. With local involvement and the chairing of the panel by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, we can be assured that its responsibilities will be discharged effectively and efficiently.

Mr John Kelly: I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is unfortunate that we had only minutes to look at it this morning. We should have had more time to get details on it. Since we had the Minister’s senior civil servants with us last Thursday, we could have had sight of the statement or been told of his intention to make it. That being said, A Chathaoirligh — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. A number of Members are having difficulty hearing your question, including the Minister. You may put your question.

Mr John Kelly: I was saying that I welcomed the statement but that it was unfortunate that we did not have more time to pay attention to the details in it. I also said that it was unfortunate, given that the Minister’s senior civil servants were with us last Thursday, that they did not indicate then his intention of making this statement this morning. However, I do welcome it.
I welcome the fact that, apart from the £20 million, there is to be an input from industry to the tune of £20 million. I refer to the student finance situation and to the £15·3 million net that is coming from student tuition fees for this year. Will the Minister pay as much attention to the question of student finance as he has paid to what is contained in this statement?

Dr Sean Farren: I thank the Member for his questions. On letting Members of the House have sight of a statement, I have complied with all requirements. The statement itself and the issues involved had to receive Executive clearance, and that was only possible at the Executive meeting last Thursday. Since then I have been in touch with the Chairman of the Committee to brief him, and all Members received a copy at the appropriate time for today’s meeting. The requirements have all been met with respect to the circulation of the statement.
I trust that the Member, being a member of the Statutory Committee on Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, will take the opportunity to discuss this matter in greater detail at the Committee’s meetings.
With respect to the attention that I am giving to financial support for students, the Member will be very aware that during the first phase of the Executive, I lost no time in addressing this matter. We initiated a review of student financial support which is now drawing to a close — the Committee on Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment is engaged with it at the moment — so I do not think that either the Department or I can be accused of neglecting it in spite of the attention that we have been giving to finding additional funding for university-based research.

Rev Robert Coulter: I too welcome today’s announcement and congratulate the Minister on his statement. Following on from his last point, I have been reliably informed by the members of the review Committee that no consideration or provision has yet been given to or made for post-graduate students in research and development. Does the Minister agree that there is little point in funding research and development if there is no money available for those who will be doing the work in the research teams that have been mentioned?

Dr Sean Farren: I thank the Member for that very important question. The Department is keeping this matter under review. I imagine, however, that any research projects submitted by the universities will take account of the need for research students to be involved. It would be unlikely that research projects would go ahead unless provision had been made for research students. After all, it is within the context of research projects that researchers gain their expertise. The involvement of a new generation of researchers is a responsibility of the universities. They have to train them and provide opportunities to enable them to develop their expertise and skills in research. I would like to think that such provision will have been made for the projects that go ahead. Obviously, it is a matter for the universities to decide how their projects are staffed, but I would like to think that research students will be among the staff of the various projects and that we will not neglect the need to develop the next generation of researchers.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I also welcome the statement made by the Minister this morning. To follow on from the last question asked, does this increase in research funding mean that student numbers will not be increased?

Dr Sean Farren: No, I do not think there is any hint or suggestion that other aspects that relate to the development of our universities will be neglected. The issue raised by the Member is currently under review. Between 1999-2002 an additional 2,000 places in higher education will be made available to our universities and university colleges. This issue is constantly under review, and I do not think that it is prejudiced in any way by today’s announcement on enhanced funding for research.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I too welcome the commitment of £20million of departmental resources to research. However, as the Minister knows, this is not a windfall payment. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Perhaps he could tell the House from which parts of his departmental budget he has had to redistribute resources in order to make this commitment for the next four years. Further, can he explain to the House whether or not colleges of further education will be able to buy into this research and benefit from it also?
I too welcome the Department’s commitment of £20million to this area. However, this is not a windfall payment, and there is no such thing as a free lunch. Will the Minister explain to the House which parts of his departmental budget he has had to redistribute resources from in order to achieve this commitment? Furthermore, will he tell the House whether colleges in further education will be able to buy into, and derive benefit from, this research?

Dr Sean Farren: The additional funding has been created by making savings on a number of services within the Department. This money is being made available over fouryears, not all at the same time, and is aimed primarily at the two universities. It is a matter for them, in devising their programmes, to determine whether the further education colleges should be involved. The Member will be aware that further education colleges do not currently have a major research role. This research programme is for the universities, but they may involve others, such as business people, in particular projects. That is a matter for their discretion, and I cannot determine it.

Mr Roy Beggs: I too welcome the Minister’s announcement. Does he agree that, as well as public/private partnership funding, increasingly close co-operation between the universities and the private sector is essential for final year projects, work placements and the tailoring of courses to the needs of industry? Does he also agree that this additional research funding will increase linkages between the education sector and industry and so may bring many additional benefits to the Northern Ireland economy and improve the job prospects of local students?

Dr Sean Farren: I thank the Member for that. If, after four years, his questions were to be answered in the negative, there would be considerable disappointment, not just on the parts of the Department and of the Minister of the time, whoever that may be, but throughout the House. Obviously we want to see the benefits to the economy that many people anticipate will follow from this announcement.
As I have said in response to several questions already, there will be many opportunities to enhance co-operation with various sectors of our economy and, indeed, more widely than that. It will be for the panel to decide which projects go ahead, and therefore which sectors of public life will benefit, but I like to think that it will be across the board. Through these projects, the universities will enhance their co-operation with all sections of society: the business world, culture and the arts, the social sciences, and so on. We will have to wait until individual projects are put forward to see where the investment is most likely to be made, but I expect that this investment will indeed be beneficial.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I welcome this statement. I am delighted that the Executive is putting in place essential pump-priming money at the cutting edge of new technology. This is evidence that devolution not only can and does work but will continue to work.
I ask the Minister to ensure that biotechnology and life and health sciences get adequate slices. How will the Executive ensure that it will get value for money for the additional investment?

Dr Sean Farren: I cannot be prescriptive about the areas of research that will be supported. The areas highlighted by the Member are ones in which our universities have been very active in terms of research, and I would be surprised if there were not to be some projects associated with them. We have to await the publication of the panel’s determinations when it meets to consider what the universities have put forward. Both universities have been working very hard to develop strategic plans covering the courses that they provide across the board, with particular emphasis on research.
I understand that the universities are ready to respond to the challenge contained in today’s announcement to ensure that the matching funding will be provided. I can assure the Member — indeed, all Members — that there will be value for money. The expenditure of this significant amount of public funding will be closely monitored, and we will obtain value for the money that we are contributing.

Mr Jim Shannon: Does the Minister agree that research work carried out by universities is essential to the successful investigation and treatment of disease, especially in fields where the pharmaceutical industry is unwilling to invest? Does he also agree that the research by both the local universities has been to the forefront of their respective fields of study? Can the Minister give the Assembly a guarantee that the necessary funding will remain available for the completion of all such work currently taking place, and that such important work will not be restricted by lack of finance in the future? Can he also comment on whether private finance has yet been committed, and, if it has not been committed, what would happen to the programme announced today?

Dr Sean Farren: I will start with the last part of the Member’s set of questions. If matching funding were not made available, then, quite obviously, the terms under which the programme has been announced would not be met. If it were a case of only partially meeting the announced public investment, which is on a pound-for-pound basis, then the programme would only go ahead on a pound-for-pound basis. I am reasonably confident at this stage that the universities will be able to ensure that the full amount of the matching funding will be provided. However, that is their responsibility. As I said in response to an earlier question, the universities have been in discussion with my Department for some time now on this, and we would not be coming to the House to make the announcement if there was not a reasonable expectation that the matching funding will be provided. At this point, it has to remain an expectation, but quite a confident expectation.
I join the Member in paying tribute to the universities’ contributions to research in those areas that he mentioned, and I assure him that my Department will try to provide the necessary support. Obviously all programmes are — to use the Member’s own word — restricted by the amount of finance available from time to time. But perhaps "restricted" is not the most appropriate word.
Funding allows things to happen, and I hope that we are allowing new things to happen with the programme announced today. I trust that together with the universities we will take further steps down the road to enable more new things to happen. It is up to the universities — and I stress this point again in response to several questions — themselves to determine, through the projects that they advance, where their emphases for research will lie. It is not the Department’s responsibility to be prescriptive, and it would be inappropriate if we were to be so. That is not to say that we do not have our views. In discussion with the universities we can certainly point to what we believe might be valuable. However, the responsibility in these matters is ultimately with the universities themselves.

Mr Speaker: The time for questions is up.

Ground Rents Bill: Second Stage

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Mr Mark Durkan: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Ground Rents Bill (NIA 6/99) be agreed.
This Bill provides a statutory scheme for the redemption of ground rents on residential property in Northern Ireland. The problem this Bill seeks to address is the difficulty experienced in the conveyancing process in Northern Ireland due to the complexity of pyramids of title, of various fee farm grants and of long leasehold estates created by the ground rents system. Complex titles to property are particularly prevalent in certain areas of Belfast and larger towns. For older properties in particular it is not uncommon to discover that apart from the immediate rent owner’s receiving the annual ground rent, there are perhaps several further layers of superior rent owners, each of whom is entitled to some payment of a ground rent from other superior rent owners below them in the pyramid.
This Ground Rents Bill has as its primary objective the simplification of land ownership in Northern Ireland. It is creating a scheme that will enable owners of residential properties subject to an annual ground rent to enlarge or convert their title into freehold titles, clear of any rent. The scheme will apply to both long leases and fee farm grants, a common system of land holding throughout both parts of this island. Upon redemption of the ground rent the a home owner will no longer have to pay an annual ground rent to the rent owner.
Other provisions of the Property (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which came into operation earlier this year, already prohibit the creation of new fee farm grants for both residential and commercial property and long leases on residential property. The measures contained in this Bill complement those existing provisions by providing the mechanism whereby existing ground rents can be bought out or redeemed. These reforms are part of the wider policy objective of moving from leasehold to freehold title for residential property in Northern Ireland.
There are two elements to the redemption scheme. First, the Bill introduces a voluntary procedure whereby a rentpayer may redeem the ground rent on his or her property by making an application and paying certain moneys to the Land Registry. If the Registrar of Titles is satisfied that the correct procedure has been followed and the correct money lodged with him, he will issue a certificate of redemption which discharges the particular property from the ground rent.
Notice that the rentpayer has done so will be served on the ground rent owner who cannot object to redemption of the ground rent. On receipt of that notice, the owner can apply to the Land Registry to be paid the money lodged by the rentpayer. If the registrar is satisfied that the person making the application is entitled to the money, he will certify it accordingly, and the appropriate sum will be paid from the Consolidated Fund. The process should be relatively simple and straightforward for all those involved in the scheme, especially rentpayers and ground rent owners.
The second element of the scheme deals with the compulsory redemption of ground rents, which will apply when a house is sold. Whether it is registered or unregistered residential property, the purchaser will have to redeem the ground rent on the property before his or her new title can be registered by the Land Registry.
The purchaser will redeem the ground rent in the same way that a person voluntarily redeems ground rent, which is by applying to the Land Registry and paying money which is then claimed by the ground rent owner of the property purchased.

John Taylor: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Mark Durkan: I shall not give way. I shall answer questions after I have made my statement.

John Taylor: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is most unusual. A Minister usually gives way when he is making a statement.

Mr Donovan McClelland: It is entirely a matter for the Minister. There will be ample opportunity to question him after he has made his statement.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you make it clear that anybody with any parliamentary experience knows that a Minister never gives way when making a statement?

Mr Mark Durkan: I was referring to money being paid into the Land Registry, which represents a reasonable level of compensation to the owner of the ground rent who, after redemption, will no longer receive that annual income. The compensation payable to the person redeeming the ground rent will be fixed according to a formula laid down in schedule1 to the Bill, which provides for the amount of the annual ground rent to be multiplied by a fixed number of years. The Ground Rents Bill confers on me the power, by order, to fix the multiplier. I intend to fix the multiplier at 9, which, I believe, will result in fair compensation for ground rent owners, while not placing an undue financial burden on rentpayers, especially those who fall within the compulsory scheme. That figure is an accurate reflection of the purchase price that is currently paid when a ground rent is redeemed.
The Bill also confers on me the power to fix different multipliers for different categories of ground rent. I have no plans to exercise that power at present. However, in the light of experience of the scheme, I shall review whether adopting a single multiplier of 9 for all ground rents proves to be too crude a mechanism for balancing the competing interests of rentpayers and ground rent owners.
A third feature is that the Bill provides detailed provision for the continuation and enforceability of covenants affecting the property when the ground rent has been redeemed. The provisions in this Bill mirror existing provisions in the Property (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which provide for the running of freehold covenants as between successors in title to the property, the ground rent of which has been redeemed. For example, the covenant for quiet enjoyment of the property will continue to bind the owner of the property even though he now has a freehold title.
There is, as yet, no fixed date for commencement of these provisions. However, I can give Members an indication of the order in which I intend to bring the various parts of the redemption scheme into force. When the necessary Land Registry rules are in place, I hope to introduce the voluntary redemption procedure early in 2001.
In respect of the compulsory redemption of ground rents I am proposing a phased introduction to tie in with the introduction of compulsory first registration to the whole of Northern Ireland. I intend that compulsory redemption should first be applied to unregistered residential property towards the end of 2001. Some time after that, and in the light of experience of how well the scheme is operating, I will extend compulsory redemption to registered residential property.
As I stated earlier, this Bill seeks to provide a simple scheme for the buying out of ground rents for both rentpayers and rent owners, with the minimum of expense to both. The Bill is, nevertheless, complex and deals with a very technical area of property law, but I commend it to the Assembly as useful reforming legislation which will help, in the long term, to simplify land ownership in Northern Ireland.
If Members raise any particular points during the debate I will try to answer them in my winding-up speech.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Bill as a first step in streamlining the whole issue of ground rent and rents across the country, but I do not think that it goes far enough. It deals primarily with dwellings and residential properties, but there are other major issues to do with absentee landlords and landlords of large estates, such as the Shaftesbury Estate, the Chichester Estate and others, who own large stretches of lands and water right across the country for which people are paying ground rent. Some of these areas of land are undeveloped because people refuse to pay the ground rent.
I am referring specifically to the bed of Lough Neagh, which is owned by the Shaftesbury Estate. Any of the councils in the area around Lough Neagh who want to develop along the shoreline or into the water have to pay the Shaftesbury Estate large amounts of ground rent to be able to do so. This has held up the whole development of Lough Neagh and has curtailed its use in many ways. I hope to see this legislation being extended to deal with that sort of issue.
There are many questions which have to be asked to compensation to landlords, many of whom would have difficulty in justifying their ownership of a particular piece of land, land that had been given to them in the past for their loyalty. It seems a bit strange to receive payment for something which did not belong to you in the first place. We also need to look at the matter of compensation in a number of ways.
I am quite certain a LeasCheann Comhairle that my Committee will be looking at all of these issues and that we will come back at the next stage — the Consideration Stage — with amendments if necessary.

Mr James Leslie: I thank the Minister for his statement. This Bill is, I suppose, the most complex piece of legislation to have come before the Assembly so far, and I see that it is winging its way to the Committee on which I sit. Fortunately, we have had the chance to warm up on one or two other easier bits of legislation.
The Bill raises a number of issues. It appears to reflect a fairly diligent development process, but there are a number of items that I would like to put to the Minister to see if he can provide any comfort. I notice, in particular, that a short residuary term is defined in the legislation as 50 years or less, and the Minister has decided, as he has the discretion to do, that the multiplier should be nine. I think that you could argue that the multiplier should be 49 if a residuary term of 50 years is to stand. You could contend that a multiplier of 49 might be suitable for "groundrent.com", as it would not represent the commercial reality of the value of ground rents. Nonetheless, I think that there seems to be some inconsistency between those two situations.
What does the Minister consider the cost and administrative burden to the Land Registry of carrying out these proposals will be? He is entirely sensible in having a phased introduction so that the system can be tested and the extent of the burden established before the compulsory section is introduced.
Would-be property purchasers need to be aware that they will not feel the benefit of this Bill until a conveyance takes place subsequent to the one that triggers the tidying up of the ground rents issue. The first conveyance taking account of this Bill will simplify things, inasmuch as it will be clear what is to be done about ground rent. However, the complete simplification of the process will not bear fruit until the subsequent conveyance takes place. In that respect, the Bill is silent on the length of time a rent owner’s right to a rent paid into the Consolidated Fund will last. Does that imply that the entitlement is perpetual?
In addition to having the discretion to set the multiplier, the Department of Finance and Personnel will determine the basis for the rate of interest paid on unclaimed redemption moneys. What basis will be used to determine that rate of interest, and will the interest be compound?
Clause 8 seems to give some scope to making spurious application to redeem ground rent. It would, in effect, deny the rent owner access to the property. The penalty for false action under clause 9 is contained in clause24. It is as well that there is a penalty, but does the Minister consider that it will be sufficient to be effective.
Clearly, this Bill can affect mortgages and existing leases. What consultations have taken place with mortgage providers to ensure that section15 of the Bill, which says that it does not affect the mortgage, satisfies all the concerns of mortgage providers that that will be the case? It would be extremely unfortunate if we were to pass a piece of legislation that leads to many mortgages having to be redocumented, inevitably at cost to the borrower.
I note that the Bill specifically excludes nominal rents of below £1, and clearly there is an argument that it would be uneconomic to try to redeem these rents. However, nominal rents are exceedingly tiresome, for the person receiving them, for the person paying them and, at the time of conveyance, for clearing up any arrears. Would it not be more sensible to have a voluntary provision for the redemption of nominal rent? The parties would be mindful that it might be of some net expense to them to clear up the nominal rent, but it might be considered to be of value. It would be worth considering if the multiplier for clearing up nominal rent should be higher in order to provide an incentive to clear them.
What consideration was given to the problems which occur when there are multiple, or joint, owners? Frequently, such owners disagree, and one of them can be left with the problem of having to sell the property and deal with the difficulties that that entails. Has sufficient consideration been given, in the framing of the legislation, to take account of this? The compulsory provision may deal with that, but what are the Minister’s thoughts on this matter?
Finally, in overall terms this Bill should be welcomed. I look forward to receiving some comfort on the matters I have raised. This seems to be a very diligent attempt to simplify our complicated land law, which I hope will benefit buyers and sellers in the conveyancing process without further enriching the practitioners in that process.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I commend the Minister on the Ground Rents Bill, which, I am sure many Members agree, is long overdue. Will he say what will happen to the excess pieces of land that have been left by developers, who have moved on, and say something about absentee landlords who do not take responsibility for maintaining these small pockets of land, such as grass cutting, for example?

Mr Seamus Close: As I listened to the Minister, the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, one theme emerged. We all agree that this is complex and weighty legislation. I have no doubt that it will require deep soul-searching and concentration when it moves to the Committee stage. One need only glance through the Bill to find clauses which will create all sorts of problems and difficulties. I am thinking of issues such as superior rents, land of separate occupation that is subject to a single ground rent, the effect of the redemption on titles and the continuation of rights and equities affecting leasehold land. I could have a field day being really difficult and demanding answers from the Minister. However, he knows me well enough to know that I would not dare to bowl him any googlies at this early stage. They are all issues that must be dealt with comprehensively.
We must also consider the cost implications of additional staffing and the whole quasi-judicial aspects of how the measure will affect the Land Registry. Our purpose today is to deal with the principles in the Bill, the key one being the simplification of conveyancing. As a rather simple individual, I like things to be made simple. I support the principles in the Bill and look forward to further consideration in the Committee when amendments will be made to make life even more simple.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I too welcome the Bill and the sooner it becomes legislation, the better for everyone. There are some aspects about which I am concerned and require some clarification from the Minister.
We have a system whereby a substantial number of peppercorn rents are applied to properties across the Province. Since first introducing its scheme of selling off properties, the Housing Executive has sold off about 86,000 homes to date. All those properties are held with a 5p ground rent, if requested. The Housing Executive does not request those ground rents because it would be too costly to do so. Imagine trying to collect 86,000 5ps across the Province. Does the Bill deal adequately with that issue, which is causing considerable concern?
The Minister also mentioned that the multiplier is 9. I am not sure that I entirely agree with that. A more realistic multiplier would have been 12, and I say that because, if this Bill is to work properly, we need the co-operation of both landlord and tenant. An obstructionist policy could come into play if the landlord discovered that the multiplier was only 9, for that might not be enough to encourage him to get into the scheme. As I have said, 12 would probably be a more realistic figure, and it should be considered.
The legal costs accrued here by a tenant’s buying out the ground rent will be considerable, and there are often long and protracted legal matters, particularly searches, which must be carried out. As one solicitor said to me, the legal costs are far in excess of the actual ground rent involved. We therefore need clarification on who will pay those legal costs. Will payment be initiated simply by the person who wishes to purchase, in this case, the tenant? Will landlords be discouraged when they see that they will also be involved in considerable legal costs, though the sums of money they receive will be minimal?
What is the position on mortgaged property? An owner will have to go back to his lender and secure his co-operation, so that will involve searches. This is going to be extremely time-consuming and protracted, and it will take a long time before an owner can purchase his ground rent.
I have also been asked to refer to the future purchase of Housing Executive properties. Will a redemption certificate be issued automatically when a Housing Executive tenant wishes to purchase his home, or will a ground rent of 5p continue to be applicable? I understand that the reasons for this are more legal than anything else. I hope a system can be devised whereby any Executive tenant purchasing his home in future will not find himself lumbered again with this clause.
Regarding a terrace of houses, I understand that there is an agreement at the moment called a header rental agreement, under which one person in a street collects all the ground rent, also becoming liable for it. Does the Bill deal adequately with that situation? If a person lives in the middle of a terrace of houses, can he purchase the ground rent on his home? I can envisage difficulties there, for, from what I have read, I assume that the Bill puts the onus on him to purchase the ground rent for the whole row. We should like to know how that will work out. I will be particularly interested in MrDurkan’s comments on the header rental agreement, since it is a significant matter in need of clarification.

John Taylor: I shall be very brief. I was sorry that the Minister did not give way. It is normal procedure in another place for a Minister to give way when moving a Second Reading motion. This is something that the House needs to address.
I should first like to raise the question of deciding how much money should be paid for buying out a ground rent. How will the Minister make this decision from year to year? Of course, the amount a lessee pays to buy out a ground rent fluctuates between a multiple of 6, 8, 10, or sometimes 12, depending on bank interest rates at the time. The lease holder will obviously want a return on the capital he receives from the sale of the equivalent of what the annual ground rent had previously been. I want to know how that factor is going to be decided.
12.00
Secondly, there are many people who want to buy out their ground rents. SinnFéin has mentioned the Shaftesbury Estates, but ignored the RomanCatholic Church in Dublin, which owns many ground rents in Northern Ireland, including most of Ogle Street in Armagh City. The Representative Churches Body of the Church of Ireland similarly controls many ground rents here. Many large institutions own ground rents in Northern Ireland, and this has strangled people here.
Thirdly, many of these ground rents are old and may be only £3per year. You could possibly buy one out for £30, but the solicitors could charge £200 to transfer ownership. That would dissuade anyone from buying out his ground rent. How is this going to be overcome?

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank all Members who have taken part in the debate. Many useful comments have been made about the general principle of the Bill. Members have appreciated that, while this is a complex and technical piece of legislation, it will make all our lives simpler in the long term by removing the outdated system of ground rents on residential property in Northern Ireland. This is a cogent and comprehensive piece of legislation which properly balances the interests of rentpayers and rent owners, while also furthering the policy aim of simplifying land ownership.
The success of the scheme will obviously depend on its practical operation. The legislation provides a workable scheme through which the conveyancing process will be simplified. There has been long and extensive consultation on the policy behind it. This has involved the Law Society, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and many experienced conveyancers in Northern Ireland. Other Government agencies have confirmed that the scheme is workable. This is the scheme that people want and need.
I will try to deal with some of the points that have been raised by Members. FrancieMolloy asked why the Bill is confined purely to residential property. As I said earlier, it is cogent legislation. We felt it was important to concentrate on dealing with the issue of residential property. It was decided to exclude property that was wholly commercial on the basis of representations that were received from many interested bodies. It was thought that there were good reasons for retaining long leases on commercial property. However, provisions of the Property Order already in force prohibit the creation of fee farm grants in relation to commercial property. In the long term this will help simplify the conveyancing of commercial property.
The major issue that the Bill seeks to address is the problem with those residential properties which are subject to a ground rent. The Bill is already complicated in trying to do that, and it would be far more complicated if we tried to include non-residential properties.
JamesLeslie questioned the use of the figure 9 as a multiplier to calculate the redemption payable to the rent owner. Mr Taylor too referred to this. I admit it has been difficult to judge exactly which multiplier would result in fair compensation on rent owners, without placing an undue financial burden on rentpayers, who will be required to redeem the ground rent once the compulsory redemption process is brought into force.
The Valuation and Lands Agency has advised that a multiplier of 9 is a good reflection of the purchase price currently being paid when a ground rent is redeemed. We also consulted the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors on this issue, and it estimated a figure of between 8 and 10.

John Taylor: I like the way that the Minister stresses the word "currently". Does that mean that this multiplier factor will change from one period to another, depending upon how interest rates vary in the United Kingdom?

Mr Mark Durkan: As I indicated earlier, I have no plans to vary the multiplier or differentiate the multipliers that would be used in respect of different properties. It is a matter that I will keep under review for a variety of reasons. The Member has raised the question of interest rates, but that may not be the only reason for keeping the multiplier under review.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Is the Minister saying that he retains that power and can, as information comes to him, make a change?

Mr Mark Durkan: Yes, I will have the power under the Bill to set different multipliers for different levels of ground as well. I do not intend to use that power at present, as I have said. I want to see how a multiplier of 9 operates during the early stages of the redemption scheme, when only voluntary redemption will actually be involved.
I want to take up MrTaylor’s point about whether or not the multiplier will be high enough to enable the investment of the capital redemption money to generate the same level of income as the existing collection of ground rents does. The answer to that will obviously depend on what investment decisions are taken by rent owners once they are in possession of the redemption money, and that is largely outside my control. However, for the rent owners that are charities — and some are — new legislation which I shall bring before the Assembly in the next session will significantly widen the range of investments available to them and should yield a larger investment income than if the investment were confined to Government stock.
MrLeslie asked whether the Department had consulted with mortgage lenders, and other Members asked how broad the consultation had been so far. There has been long and extensive consultation with all the interested parties in the development of this ground rent redemption scheme. The relevant professional bodies, such as the Law Society, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and others, were consulted and have been intimately involved in the formulation of the policy to which this Bill will give effect. The scheme commands widespread support among experienced conveyancers. More than 20 organisations and individuals have commented on it in detail, including a number of estate agents involved in the collection of a large number of ground rents.
MrLeslie also asked about the money being paid into the Consolidated Fund. The reason is that there is no other place for the money to go. If no one claims entitlement to money in the Consolidated Fund, it has to stay there. I do not agree, however, that the Government benefit from the money. All money in the Consolidated Fund, insofar as it is not already earmarked for specific purposes, is available for expenditure on public services.
MrLeslie also asked about the rate of interest to be paid by the Department of Finance and Personnel, and I will write to him with the details of this. MrLeslie, and MrMorrow as well, asked about the position on nominal or peppercorn ground rents. We have decided to exclude nominal or peppercorn rents from the redemption scheme. On consideration it seemed to us that requiring people who pay, say, 50p a year ground rent to operate this redemption scheme, involving an application to the Land Registry and paying the necessary fees, and so on, would not be very sensible. This new definition reflects the original thinking of the land law working group, and it has the support of the professions. We are, however, considering an alternative mechanism for sweeping up these nominal rents, and such a mechanism may be the subject of an amendment at Consideration Stage.
MrMorrow also asked about the costs involved in the redemption scheme. Under this scheme the costs will lie with each party: the rent owner will pay his costs, and the rentpayer likewise. There is a provision, however, in clause4, for the person buying out the ground rent to have to pay the Land Registry a sum of money by way of a contribution to the rent owner’s costs in claiming the redemption money. As the people benefiting from this scheme are the rentpayers, we thought that this was only fair.
MrClose and MrLeslie asked about the implications for the Land Registry. There will, of course, be an impact on the resources of the Land Registry. In time, however, the redemption of the ground rents will simplify the conveyancing process, and the Land Registry is content that it can operate the scheme well. I hope that detailed consideration of the sort that Members have already shown of this Bill — [Interruption]

John Taylor: I want to repeat briefly my question regarding legal fees. If, for example, there were a ground rent of just £3 per annum, using the Minister’s factor of 9 one would have to pay about £27 to buy it out. What incentive will there be to do this if solicitors are still going to charge £200 or £300?

Mr Mark Durkan: I ask the Member to look at the Bill again to see that we are talking about a fairly simple procedure — not one that should be subject to complicated or costly legal procedures. That is one of the reasons for working with the Land Registry, going for quite a simple scheme. It has been discussed with, among others, the Law Society, and it is seen as being reasonably straightforward. Clearly, as I pointed out in earlier answers in relation to, for instance, the question of nominal or peppercorn ground rents, we have to make sure that we do not have a scheme that, of itself, discourages the participation of people who could usefully and sensibly benefit from it. We believe that there will be a balance between the fees, in terms of the Land Registry and the redemption multiplier, and that the incentives will be there to operate the scheme properly — initially for the voluntary scheme, and, at a later stage, for a compulsory scheme relating to house sales.
Today’s questions show that this is a complicated matter, and there is no easy way of simplifying residential property law in this regard. Ground rent has been a long-standing bugbear, and the various measures which have been examined before have come up against operational difficulties and complications. Certainly, all the parties which were involved in previous efforts and those who have been consulted on this believe that this is the most workable scheme proposed to date.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Mr Morrow asked a question about header rents, which I think are probably unique to Belfast. These cause great difficulty, because very often one individual is left to do the job of the estate agent and collect all the rents. If the person holding the header rent agrees to buy it out, will that exempt him from having to collect the other rents as he does at present?

Mr Mark Durkan: The aim of the Bill is to create a situation where we no longer have ground rents — either being paid or being collected. We would have to look at the nature of all property holdings to ensure that the scheme was applicable in that regard. It is not the intention of the Bill to leave any part of Northern Ireland in an anomalous situation with ground rents still being retained, be that under a header agreement or anything else. If particular problems exist in relation to the Belfast area and certain properties, we will give those matters more detailed consideration.
We would regard the Bill as incomplete if identifiable residential properties were left with outstanding ground rent liabilities. I am happy to write to both Members on this matter. I hope that we can develop this point further in the Committee and at the Consideration Stage of the Bill.
In conclusion, I welcome Members’ recognition of the complexity of what we are doing here. We are trying to come up with a simple, understandable and usable system. We do not want fees or multipliers to be so low that there is no incentive or so high that the scheme is prohibitive. We feel that we have achieved the right balance. Other considerations may emerge over time. The Bill provides for certain matters to be kept under review by leaving the power to vary the multiplier with the Minister of Finance and Personnel.
I am glad that so many Members have welcomed the Bill’s intent and purpose. The legislation will benefit from that goodwill and from the insight that Members have already brought to bear, as we take it through its further stages.
Question put and agreed.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Ground Rents Bill (NIA 6/99) be agreed.

Appropriation Bill: Consideration Stage

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Mr Speaker: As there are no proposed amendments to this Bill, there may not be any debate. It is a finance Bill, so the clauses must be passed by cross-community support. For the convenience of the Assembly, I propose that when the Questions are put, I will gather the voices, and if it appears to me that there is support for the proposition on all sides and no indication against, I will take that as cross-community support without dividing the House. However, if there is a challenge on any Question, the House will divide in order to demonstrate whether there is cross-community support, in the way that it has done previously.
I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group the five clauses of the Bill.
Leave granted.
Clauses 1 to 5 ordered, nemine contradicente, to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: I propose to deal with the two schedules in the same way, putting them together if the Assembly gives leave.
Leave granted.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to nemine contradicente.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Appropriation Bill, which therefore stands referred to the Speaker to judge questions of competence, after which it will be placed on the list of future business.

Allowances to Members of the Assembly and Office Holders Bill: Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: There will be a series of amendments to this Bill. However, the debate will be suspended from 2.30pm to 4.00pm for Question Time. We shall also be taking a lunch break at some point.
I remind Members, though perhaps I ought not to, that there is no guillotine on a Consideration Stage. Members may speak more than once, and no doubt some will do so at some length. If the Consideration Stage has not been completed by 6.00pm we will have to interrupt the proceedings, in accordance with Standing Orders, and resume them tomorrow at 10.30am.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Mr Speaker, I did not catch what you said about the break for lunch. What time is proposed?

Mr Speaker: I ought to give Members an hour. We shall therefore continue until about 1.30pm. That gives us just over an hour now.
Clause 1 (Resettlement allowance for members)
Amendment (No 7) proposed: 
"Determination 2000, made by the Secretary of State under section48 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 by virtue of paragraph9 of the schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000". — [Mr Fee]
The following amendment (No 8) stood on the Marshalled List: 
"Determination 2000, made by the Secretary of State under section 48 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 by virtue of paragraph 9 of the schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000". — [Mr Fee]

Mr Speaker: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List and I have ensured that there are some extra copies in the Lobby, as well as in the Printed Paper Office. The list gives the detailed order of consideration and voting on the amendments, clauses, schedule and long title of the Bill. The amendments have been grouped in my provisional grouping of the selected amendments list. Members may not be familiar with this, and if any Member does not have a copy, there are also copies in the Lobby. This is simply to facilitate sensible debate, as best I can, on the issues that are raised.
When a Member proposes the lead amendment in a group, the debate ought to encompass all the amendments in that group. The mover of an amendment will be the first to speak and will be called to make the winding-up speech after the debate on that amendment. Where the mover of an amendment, which is the lead amendment in that group, is not the Member in charge, the Member in charge will be called, of course, to speak before the mover’s winding-up speech. I will, however, at the end of the debate on that group, put only the Question on the lead amendment. The Question will then be put on the remaining amendments on that group as they fall later on in the Marshalled List. For these amendments, I will ask the Member to move them formally — normally without debate. However, it is not out of order for a Member to speak to an amendment when it has been formally moved. If that happens, that will, of course, open up a debate, and then the mover of the amendment will be given an opportunity to make a winding-up speech subsequently. That possibility is there. I prevail on Members not to use it excessively, because it makes little point of putting the amendments into groups. However, I am aware that today, and on days when Members are learning the ropes, it may be of value for the consequences of particular amendments being taken or not being taken to be brought to the attention of the House.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On that point, Sir, can these amendments be withdrawn only by the leave of the House?

Mr Speaker: I thank Dr Paisley for that point. When we come to the first amendment in a group, it must be moved so that it and the other amendments in the group may be spoken to.
Once it has been moved it is in the possession of the House and can only be removed by leave of the House. If another Member objected to that amendment’s being withdrawn, the House would divide upon the Question. However, later amendments in that group may be debated without having been moved. When an amendment comes forward, I will ask the Member responsible for it whether it is moved or not moved. The Member may then say "Not moved", and the only person who has a right to insist that it be moved is a Member who had also put his name to it in the first place. Some amendments are in the names of more than one Member, so that is not a matter for the leave of the House. Rather it is a matter for the leave of those other Members who put their names to the amendment in the beginning.
This is a somewhat new procedure for the Assembly. Some Members are familiar with it from other places, but many Members are not. I am perfectly content to take questions of procedure as we go along, because it is a little complex.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. If I have understood you correctly, you are being more generous than the Speaker would be in another place, where, with a group of amendments, usually the lead amendment only is put to a vote. It would be very rare for the Speaker to allow any of the further amendments in that group to be put to a vote.

Mr Speaker: This grouping of amendments is one that I put together to facilitate the debate. It does not have standing in any other sense. Had I been of a different mind, I could have grouped them together in a political sense, but that would have been quite out of line for me, as Speaker, to do. This does not have the vote of the House, so we must allow a degree of flexibility to enable me to assist the House in this debate. The House, in the end, is the governor of what happens, and that is why I am following this path. It does give a degree of latitude that I do not think inappropriate, particularly since the Consideration Stage, as our Standing Orders now have it, is the only opportunity for amendments to be proposed and voted upon.
In other places there are not only two Chambers but a number of occasions for amendments to be put, debated and voted upon. We have to proceed with particular care because we have only one opportunity to ensure good legislation. If we do not use it carefully, we could make a situation worse.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker. It does remain the right of a person whose amendment is numbered under this list, if he so wants, to move that amendment. Is that correct?

Mr Speaker: That is absolutely the case. Amendments are given a unique number when they are tabled, and numbered in the order in which they were tabled with the Bill Office. This number remains with them until the Bill completes its Consideration Stage. The amendment numbers reflect the order of tabling in the Bill Office, but they do not reflect their order or position for consideration. Their position for consideration is as on the Marshalled List, which takes us through the Bill. As I said, Members may speak more than once.
We will take the debate on the amendments; we will then take the lead amendment; we will then take the clause as amended or not amended, as the case may be, and subsequent clauses until we come to a further amendment and so on; and then, at the end, we will take any schedules and the long title of the Bill.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a bit of difficulty with so many amendment sheets going round, but I notice that amendment 3 says "Leave out clause 3." Have you accepted that as a valid amendment? Should it not simply be a case of voting against the motion that the clause stand part?

Mr Speaker: I have accepted it as a valid amendment. If it were not down as an amendment, there could not properly be debate on it. Otherwise one would facilitate debate on every clause as it came forward rather than simply having Members voting for or against. In most cases they are likely to vote for. If a Member wishes to debate whether a clause should stand part, an amendment ought to be put down. There is a further good reason for this. If a Member tables an amendment to the effect that a clause should not stand part, the removal of that clause is likely to have consequences for the Bill. Some might be technical consequences; some might be content consequences; and some might be consequences for the long title of the Bill. If one did not require that an amendment be put down that, in this case, clause3 should not stand part, any consequential amendments tabled would not make sense, for one would not know that there was going to be a question of a clause’s not standing part.
That is why it is a necessary for us to proceed in this way. I appreciate that everyone is coming to grips with procedures that are necessarily new because of the fewer Consideration Stages.

Mr Peter Robinson: If this amendment were not passed, it would still be possible to vote against the motion that the clause stand part.

Mr Speaker: It would not be possible to debate the matter unless an amendment had been put down on it. It would be possible, if one were minded — perhaps I should not suggest such a thing — to wreck a Bill. One could find oneself voting for consequential amendments, the amendment that the clause not stand part having been passed. One could vote through a technical amendment which would in effect make nonsense of the Bill. The Member who raised the question is, I suspect, quite familiar with such devices. We will therefore proceed with amendment 7.

Mr John Fee: I would also like to speak also to amendment 8. These are two technical amendments which result directly from the Secretary of State’s actions during suspension when he gave a Determination on pension provision for Assembly Members. In effect this means that we will not proceed with the Pensions Bill and, therefore, that the references to the Pensions Bill in the Allowances to Members of the Assembly and Office Holders Bill must be amended accordingly.
Both these amendments have that effect, and I ask Members to support both.

Mr Alex Maskey: Sinn Féin will support amendments 7 and 8 since they are technical and legal requirements. However, we shall be voting against clause 1, for it is not appropriate to make such a resettlement grant to people who contest elections and are not re-elected. There is even less of a case for making such grants to people who choose not to stand for re-election.

Mr Speaker: Is amendment 7 moved or not moved?

Mr John Fee: Moved.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 (Allowances to persons ceasing to hold certain offices)
Amendment (No 9) proposed:
"( ) on the date on which he so ceases, has held a qualifying office (whether or not the same one) for a continuous period of at least six months ending on that date;". — [Mr Fee]
The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:
(No 1):
(No 4):
"( ) No allowance shall be payable under this section where a person has held a qualifying office for a period of less than twelve months." — [Mr Leslie]
(No 10):
"( ) No allowance shall be payable under this section where a person has ceased to hold a qualifying office by virtue of the coming into force of section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 2000." — [MrFee]
(No 11):
"( ) In reckoning for the purposes of this section —
(a) the period of six months mentioned in subsection (1), there shall be disregarded—
(i) any period during which section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 2000 is in force; and
(ii) any period not exceeding six weeks which falls between two periods of tenure of a qualifying office;
(b) the period mentioned in subsection (1)(b) or paragraph (a)(ii), there shall be disregarded any period during which the Assembly is dissolved." — [Mr Fee]
(No 14: amendment to amendment 11):
(No 15):
"( ) No allowance shall be payable under this section where a person has been excluded from holding a qualifying office following a resolution of the Assembly under section 30(1) or 30(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998." — [MrLeslie]
(No 2): 
"( ) In reckoning the period of six weeks referred to in subsection (1)(b), no account shall be taken of any time during which the Assembly is dissolved." — [The Chairman of the Finance and Personnel Committee]

Mr John Fee: It may be helpful to Members if I recap briefly on the purpose of this Bill and the developments which have taken place since it was originally placed before the Assembly late last year.
The Bill provides for the payment of allowances to Members who leave the Assembly, to help with their adjustment to non-Assembly life and to wind up their Assembly affairs. It also allows for the payment of an allowance to those who step down from office holder posts, and who may or may not continue as Members of the Assembly, to assist them in adjusting to no longer being in receipt of the office holder element of their salary. These allowances are available to Members of the Westminster Parliament, and the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) has recommended that they may be made available in the three devolved Administrations.
The Assembly, when in shadow form, took the view that, as a matter of principle, we should follow SSRB recommendations on salaries, allowances and pensions. The Assembly Commission, which I represent in this matter, has therefore felt obliged to bring forward this Bill in line with the previously expressed wishes of the Assembly.
Clause 1 and the schedule provide for the payment of an allowance of at least six months’ salary to a Member who does not stand for re-election at a general election or who is not re-elected.
Clause 2 provides for an allowance at a similar level to a Member who is obliged to retire from the Assembly on ill-health grounds.
Clause 3 provides for the payment of an allowance to an office holder when he or she ceases to hold a qualifying office.
Clause 4 provides for the payment of a winding-up allowance of up to one third of the office costs allowance to meet actual expenditure by Members on winding up their Assembly affairs on leaving the Assembly.
Clause 5 provides for all the allowances to be paid by the Assembly Commission.
At this point I wish to express my appreciation of the work of the Finance and Personnel Committee, which was more than diligent in its scrutiny of the detailed provisions of the Bill. It has been as a result of the Committee’s work that a number of amendments have been put forward to tighten up the provisions of the Bill in relation to clause 3 which provides for the payment of an allowance to office holders when they cease to hold a qualifying office. The Commission has been more than happy to accept amendments which improve the drafting of the Bill and which, in particular, address differences in local circumstances in Northern Ireland from the situation at Westminster.
The Assembly Commission feels strongly, however, that it would be wrong to depart from the principles of the SSRB’s recommendations in the area of salaries, allowances or pensions. By following SSRB consistently we have an open and transparent method of fixing our remuneration and allowances package as recommended by an independent panel of experts. This gives us a sound basis on which to justify this package to our constituents and the wider public. Once we depart in one area from SSRB recommendations we lose the whole basis and justification for following the remainder.
The amendments before us this afternoon fall into two categories. First, we have just dealt with a number of technical amendments concerning the determination by the Secretary of State. Secondly, we have a number of amendments that deal specifically with clause 3 on the payment of allowances to office holders when they cease to hold a qualifying office. In my comments on amendment 9, I will also be referring to amendments 11, 13, 14, 15, 10, 1, 2 and 4.
As originally drafted, clause 3 provides for the payment of an allowance to a Member, who must be under 65 years of age, who ceases to be an office holder and who does not become an office holder again within three weeks. The amount of the allowance is equivalent to three months of the salary the office holder was getting in excess of a Member’s basic salary. It is designed to assist Members adjust to the reduction in salary which loss of office entails. We now accept that the drafting of this clause needs to be tightened up for a number of reasons.
First, we agree that an office holder should have to serve a minimum period in office before becoming eligible for the allowance on ceasing to hold the office. At present, theoretically, an office holder could leave office after serving for only one day and yet be eligible for the allowance on leaving. Our feeling is that this qualifying period should be set at six months, after which it would be reasonable to compensate an office holder for the reduction in salary on leaving office.
Secondly, we agree — and the Member mentioned parity with Westminster, and precisely the same scheme is recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body for Westminster, for the Northern Ireland Assembly, for the Scottish Parliament and for the National Assembly of Wales — that the minimum period a former office holder must remain out of office before the allowance becomes payable should be increased from three weeks to six weeks, and that periods during which the Assembly is dissolved should not count towards the six-week period.
Thirdly, provision needs to be made to ensure that payment of the allowance is not triggered by suspension of the devolved Government. On this basis I ask Members to support the amendments being put down on behalf of the Assembly Commission. Those include amendments1 and2, tabled by the Chairman of the Finance and Personnel Committee, which deal with the points I have mentioned.
Amendment9 introduces the condition that an office holder must have at least six months’ continuous service in one or more qualifying offices to be eligible for an allowance on leaving office under clause3 of the Bill. Without that amendment, an allowance would become payable on a person’s leaving office regardless of how long or short a period he had served as an office holder.
Amendment11 introduces a number of consequential amendments as a result of the introduction of the qualifying period. Any period of suspension of devolved Government is to be disregarded when calculating the qualifying period. Where there is an interruption in a period of continuous service as an office holder, providing the interruption is sixweeks or less, the period either side of the interruption will be considered as continuous. Any period during which the Assembly is dissolved will not count when calculating any period of interruption between two qualifying periods as an office holder. The amendment also restates the provisions of amendment2 to ensure that any period during which the Assembly is dissolved does not count towards the period during which an office holder must remain out of office, before becoming eligible for an allowance.
MrLeslie has tabled two amendments to amendments 9and11. The purpose, and the effect, of his amendments would be to increase the qualifying period of service from six months to twelve months. The Assembly Commission feels that this may penalise Members who will serve in public office for perhaps periods of up to ten months, or even for the proverbial 364days. They would not qualify for an allowance under MrLeslie’s amendments. However, the principle of all these amendments is the same, that is, to introduce a qualifying period of service before an office holder becomes eligible for an allowance on ceasing to hold that office.
A number of other amendments, which are grouped together with amendment9. Effectively we will be supporting amendments15 and 10, the purpose of which are to prevent payment of allowances being triggered either as a result of the suspension of the Assembly or indeed by the exclusion of an office holder from office as a result of a decision, or a motion, of this Assembly.
Finally, on this particular group of amendments, I would point out that should the Assembly decide to support MrLeslie’s amendments, I feel that amendment4 becomes redundant.
(Amendment (No 13) to amendment 9 proposed):

Mr James Leslie: As the House will be aware, the Bill first came to Committee in January but was subsequently interrupted by the suspension. During its passage in Committee, some concerns were expressed and amendments which were proposed have come through in the past couple of weeks.
Essentially, the debate in Committee revolved round two matters. First, there was the principle of accepting the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body. The Assembly, sitting in shadow form in February 1999, unanimously agreed to accept the principle of the SSRB’s recommendations. That proposal, was put to the Assembly by the Commission and was accepted in advance of knowing what those recommendations would be. The key point was that the Assembly should not be seen to be setting its own pay and allowances. It was thought to be much better for such decisions to be in independent hands, so that comments on them would be a matter for a third party and not for the Assembly.
The important thing is that there is no cherry-picking of the allowances proposed by the third party — in this case, the Senior Salaries Review Body. However, considerable disquiet was raised by some Members about some of the allowances that had not been anticipated. On the whole, the allowances proposed would be in line with good employment practice; after all, in politics when you lose a job there is no notice period and the recommendations made by the Senior Salaries Review Body reflect that absence of notice.
Is the qualification test that has been set sufficient? Without altering the intent of the Senior Salaries Review Body, the House could impose on itself a threshold in order for Members to qualify for certain allowances. That is the intention of the amendments in the name of Mr Fee and myself. The issue between us is how high that threshold should be. It could be argued in a great many ways. I contemplated tabling amendments stipulating periods from six months to 24months; I was uncertain as to the right period. However, following discussions in my party and with others, I felt there was consensus around a 12-month qualifying period. That is what I now propose to the House.
The Assembly might like to bear in mind — this also relates to clause1 — that Members need some motivation to retire. It would be unfortunate if, in future years — [Interruption]

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: You should lead by example.

Mr James Leslie: Mr Speaker, I look longingly towards retirement, but at the age of 42 I shall have to do a little more work before I can afford to retire. However, I do not think that I would have any difficulty finding more highly paid remuneration than this should I choose to do so.
To return to my point, it would be unfortunate if, in the future, it were written of Members that they appeared to be hanging on to office or their jobs because of the financial consequences of ceasing to do so. Paying an allowance — one quarter of an office holder’s allowance is scarcely a king’s ransom — forms some sort of recognition of the extra responsibilities borne by office holders.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Why does the Member not do the House the courtesy of telling us what he really means? He really means that he wants to exclude the DUP from having access to this, but he wants SinnFéin, the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP to be able to do so. That is the real basis of his proposal. Why will he not be honest with us and tell us the reason?

Mr James Leslie: If the Member had read the minutes of the deliberations of the Finance and Personnel Committee when we were considering this Bill, he would have found that I and other members of the Committee, including Mr Close, whom I am sure will be speaking later, raised this matter. We were thinking about this completely independently of anything the Member’s party may or may not do. We actively discussed it in January and February of this year, so the Member’s comments are not relevant.
Finally, amendment 15 standing in my name is designed to address the situation where an office holder loses the confidence of the House for any of the reasons laid down in the legislation and loses office for that reason. In those circumstances it would not be appropriate for the allowances to be payable. That concludes my remarks on these amendments at this stage.

Mr Speaker: As we proceed to the debate, may I remind Members that this is the first occasion on which we have had a Consideration Stage and that this is an opportunity to address any of the substantial number of amendments.

Mr Francie Molloy: A ArdCheann Comhairle, go raibh maith agat. As Chairman of the Finance and Personnel Committee I am pleased to speak on this Bill. The Bill was referred to the Committee for scrutiny. The Committee met in public to examine the Bill and reported to the Assembly on 8February. I thank Mr John Fee, the sponsor of the Bill, and his officials for their helpful advice to the Committee and the Assembly Commission. Mr Fee was able to reassure the Committee that it did not contravene equal opportunities or discrimination legislation.
I also thank Mr Fee for endorsing the amendments put forward by the Committee, and I speak in favour of amendment 11. The Committee examined each of the clauses in turn and agreed that clauses 1, 2 and 4 should stand unamended as part of the Bill. I have many reservations about these clauses, but as Chairman of the Committee, I must speak on its behalf.
Although I speak of the need to amend clause 3, I must also advise the Assembly that the Committee concluded that the allowance provided for by clause 3 to Members and office holders should not form part of the Bill. I shall, therefore, shortly be advising the Assembly to omit that clause entirely, but clause 3 must first be amended as proposed in amendments 1 and 2 to correct some inherent defects. The clause, in its original form, entitles office holders such as Ministers, Presiding Officers and others specified in Standing Orders to a payment equivalent to three months’ pay. This would be paid in cases where they ceased to hold office in the Assembly and did not hold office again for three weeks.
The Committee identified a serious deficiency in clause 3 and asked the Commission to reconsider the clause. The Commission did so and agreed that clause 3 should be amended. As presently worded, the three-week period would start as soon as the Assembly was dissolved. Persons could be paid this allowance and then accept another paid office as soon as a new Assembly were elected and office holders appointed. This could be within four weeks of dissolution.
The Committee recommends that the fixed period of threeweeks referred to in clause3 (1b) should be increased to sixweeks. No account should be taken of any period during which the Assembly was dissolved when calculating the time. This will ensure that the fixed period for calculating an office holder’s entitlement to this only begins once a new Assembly has been elected.
The amendments put forward are to improve the Bill and not simply to cherry-pick the Senior Salaries Review Body’s recommendations. It would be entirely different if the Assembly were setting its own salaries and allowances. It is not the same as when we talk about denying ourselves allowances or salaries. On behalf of the Committee I recommend that the Assembly vote in favour of these amendments to clause3. Chathaoirligh, that concludes my remarks on amendments1 and2.

Mr Gregory Campbell: When MrFee introduced this issue he mentioned that a series of amendments had been suggested to clause3. I commented last week in the Commission that each political party, and each member involved in this issue, would have a particular view on clause3 — which is the main bone of contention in this Bill. There were originally a variety of approaches to this scheme, but it appeared that Members were generally content to allow the Senior Salaries Review Body to make the recommendations in the absence of knowledge about the outcome. MrPaisley suggested that clause3 was related to the fact that there may soon be a change of ministerial positions — MrLeslie, of course, rejected this idea. Since the DUP has made it clear that, under certain conditions, there will be changes to ministerial office holders, there have been a number of amendments referring to time periods which coincide with the time when we might hold ministerial positions. It is disingenuous for anyone to argue that clause3, and the suggested amendments, are not related to the fact that some Members will only be Ministers or office holders for a limited time.
Let no one be in any doubt that the DUP Members in the House today will be voting against clause3 in its entirety. The issue should be whether to accept in full the recommendations of the SSRB. Owing to recent political changes the Members on this side of the House want people to be absolutely clear that our view is that we should not benefit one jot or tittle from holding office in this Assembly, as derived from clause3. That is our position, and it is a position, we think, of integrity and of principle.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Does the Member not also find it very strange that these dates take no account of any suspension of the Assembly? The allowances still go on. If, because of the activities of one party, say IRA/Sinn Féin does something and the Assembly is suspended again, the allowances will still build up their value. Because of the stand that we have taken they think that they must do something about it. Well, we invite them to do something about it: say goodbye to clause 3, and then no one will benefit. How about that for a test of their integrity?

Mr Gregory Campbell: It is somewhat invidious that there could be a variety of circumstances under which some Members stand to gain. The clearest message from the House today would be a simple decision to delete clause 3, thus avoiding any accusation of benefit whatsoever. It would avoid too the business of the periods (six months, 12 months, three months — several have been mentioned), which would also leave us open to accusations of political expediency. My party supports the deletion of clause 3.

Mr Seamus Close: I am absolutely delighted. I am over the moon that on this occasion the Democratic Unionist Party is going to take a principled stand against clause 3. The evidence will show that that is exactly the line that I have been taking from day one when this Bill came before the Finance and Personnel Committee. On that occasion we were told that in principle we had accepted the SSRB recommendations. Most of the parties were represented on the SSRB and, having accepted its principles, how dared we try to change any of the clauses of this Bill? We stuck to our guns on that issue. We demonstrated that there are times when you have to be a little bit extreme in your view to achieve, through the democratic process, that which is in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland. The point has already been well made.
Look at the number of lines in clause 3, about 15 or 16 lines, and look at the number of lines of amendments to clause 3. I am prepared to support the issues that are coming up under 9, 13, 1, and 11, et cetera, without prejudice to my position on clause 3 — namely that it should be thrown out in its entirety. We will come to that in the debate on amendments 3, 5 and 6.
Nevertheless, it is important to point out that the whole clause is such a mishmash that the only proper thing to do with it is kick it out. I want to assure Members, certainly those who share my perspective, who feel that there was some political motivation or party-political motivation behind the stand that I have taken on this, that such a view is totally without foundation. I take the view that we, as Members of the Assembly, were elected to the Assembly as equals and that, with regard to any payments for holding office or whatever, we should all be treated as equals. I am conscious of the fact, and no Member of the House should ever lose track of this, that we are responsible to the general public for the expenditure of taxpayers’ money. We should not follow blindly SSRB recommendations that are all right for England, Scotland, Wales or whatever. We have a responsibility to the taxpayers of Northern Ireland.
They must be uppermost in our mind. We must never lose sight of that point. We did it some months ago, just shortly after taking our seats, when one of the first things that we approved was an increase in salary. Listen to what the general public said about that. They did not like it. The "I am all right, Jack"/"I am all right, Jill" syndrome is all wrong to the electorate to whom we are accountable.
I will speak about my objections to clause3 in more detail when the appropriate time comes. Without prejudice at this stage, I think that the amendments improve the mishmash of clause3 as originally drawn up. Therefore, while not wishing to count my chickens before they are hatched, I am confident that clause3 will be kicked out by the House. But just in case that does not happen, I am prepared to support the amendments.

Mr Alex Maskey: I will not go into every amendment now, because, like one or two other Members, my party will be voting against clause 3 in its entirety for a number of reasons.
MrFee made a fair point earlier when he said that we should not depart from the recommendations of the SSRB, but his own amendment to move the qualifying period from threeweeks to sixmonths is doing just that. I draw Members’ attention to the remarks made by MrJimHamilton from the Department of Finance and Personnel when he gave evidence to the Committee. He made the point that to move the qualifying period from threeweeks to, say, sixmonths would more or less render it redundant. Therefore, I think it is a bad amendment.
My party wants to have clause3 deleted, but if that does not happen we will, of course, seek to improve the Bill as best we can. That is why we will be supporting, as SeamusClose said, some of the amendments without prejudice to our view on clause3 in its entirety.
I made the point in January of this year at a Committee meeting that a party could replicate the allowances by rotating these posts among a number of its Members, and wanted to make sure that that did not happen. I am glad that the DUP has also adopted this position. That is good.
The SSRB recommendations, in our view, did not take into account the fact that two thirds of Assembly Members will be office holders, which is not the case in the other institutions, including Westminster. While it was important to have an independent judgement made by a body like the SSRB, we cannot slavishly follow all of its recommendations, because some of them are not appropriate. As I have said, it is not appropriate to have two thirds of Members qualifying for these allowances. Also, since office holders will already have received a salary increase, to give them an allowance when they leave their post will be like giving them a double bumper, so to speak. That is not appropriate. We will be supporting some of these amendments, purely to improve the Bill as much as possible, without prejudice to our vote later on to delete clause3 in its entirety.

Mr Robert McCartney: I support some of the sentiments on the principle of clause3 that have already been expressed by some Members who have already spoken. The population of NorthernIreland views with a great deal of disgust the fact that, for the short periods that the Assembly has been sitting, it has concerned itself, to a very large degree, with the emoluments, salaries, pensions and, now, departure allowances of Members. Anyone I have spoken to sees what is happening here as the clearest possible illustration of what one newspaper described as the "snouts in the trough" syndrome.
As has been said already Assembly Members are not only receiving their salaries, which have been raised to something like £38,000 or £39,000 per year, but are also in receipt of an office allowance of £35,000 or so per year.
Only a limited number are manifestly, expressly and publicly using that allowance for the purpose for which it is paid. On top of that, those who hold office are receiving large sums. The First and the Deputy First Ministers are in receipt of a total salary of approximately £100,000. Other Ministers receive around £34,000 on top of their £39,000 basic salary. This largesse is being distributed throughout most of the offices. Over 50% of Members enjoy some perk in addition to their basic salary. All of them are, as it were, on the strength. This is not an ordinary democracy with a Government from a majority party and an Opposition. The largesse is distributed across all the major parties, particularly those in a position to appoint Ministers and dictate Committee membership. That really is jobs for the boys and, in some cases, the girls. It is undermining the public credit and integrity of the Assembly.
We are now faced with clause 3. This will provide for additional payments to all the office holders, so that they can be eased into positions in public or private life commensurate with the salaries and emoluments they have earned here. The public questions how many of those who receive these vast increases earned or would earn anything comparable either in their previous employment or in any employment they could properly expect to enjoy in the future on the basis of their past experience and professional or business records. I oppose clause 3 in the most fundamental way.
Some of the amendments intend to limit the worst excesses of that clause. Insofar as they do that, they are entitled to a degree of support. The fundamental position of my party and myself is that, as Members from other parties have said, clause 3 is a disgrace. It is no excuse to say that the Senior Salaries Review Body recommended that salaries should be set on the basis of some mystical parity with other elected bodies. It is for Members here, regardless of what some other body may do or what legitimacy some other body may offer, to decide whether it is justified in voting, out of the public purse, emoluments and benefits of this kind. I submit that it is not. If Members continue in this, they will undermine public support. They will be seen as a bunch of elected people feathering their own nests, snorting and snuffling in the biggest trough they can find.

A Member: You forgot about your MP’s salary.

Mr Robert McCartney: A fraction of what I used to earn. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I support the comments of my Colleague Mr Gregory Campbell. The DUP completely opposes clause 3. It is significant that the one thing that gets the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party worked up into a frenzy is the issue of pensions payable, as they thought, to members of this party who were part of the system of rotating ministerial office.
I notice we do not have any amendments, questions or statements about Sinn Féin Ministers refusing to fly flags and abusing their office. There is no frenzy or lather worked up as far as that is concerned, but when it comes to what they think is an attempt by the DUP to obtain ministerial position for financial gain, they get worked up into a frenzy.
It probably says more about the mindset of the Members who tabled these amendments that that was how they thought when they heard of the DUP’s plan to oppose this agreement. They think in terms of money, but we think in terms of principle and standing up for our election manifesto.
Look at the arguments that have been made — and there have not been too many — in defence of clause 3. MrFee said that the proposals of the SSRB, which I understand recommended the timescales that are presently in the Bill, should be implemented because they gave transparency. However, when it comes to this issue, suddenly the SSRB recommendations are not all that sacrosanct, and transparency does not matter. We have to ask whether that is the real reason for the amendments. MrLeslie made the most bizarre point when he said "We need to encourage people to retire."
I am not going to read from this newspaper, for I got told off earlier; I am just going to show it —

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member is aware that to do so is out of order.

Mr Sammy Wilson: If one goes by the headline in a certain newspaper this morning — a newspaper that I have no love for — there is going to be no difficulty in finding ways of getting Ulster Unionist Party members to retire because the electorate is going to show them the retirement door. Their own party is saying it — not the DUP. They do not need clause 3 as a retirement plan. If they just call elections they will get all the retirement plans they need. Those are the only two arguments that I have heard so far in defence of clause 3.
I welcome the fact that other parties have followed us. I particularly welcome MrClose. I think he has become too close to the two parties he sits between — the PUP and Sinn Féin — because he is now going to stick to his guns as well.
Clause 3 would be misinterpreted by the general public. I suspect that there are people who, because of their attempts to make and gain some political capital out of the campaign which we have committed ourselves to in opposing this agreement, may well regret the fact that they have raised this question in the House today. I suspect they may lose the vote on Clause 3. I am sure that was not the intention of those who have clung on to office, who have thrown principle aside and buried their manifestos. Some of them have done so in pursuit of position and all that it brings. Voting against clause 3 will indicate that Members of the Assembly take a principled stand. It will also be a bad blow for those who were ill advised enough to raise the matter.

Mr James Leslie: I thought this debate had plenty of steam in it. There was talk of frenzy down at the other end of the House so I assume that there must be more of it to come. Certainly the DUP Members seem to have got themselves into a lather of self-justification, but I am afraid we are unable to match their frenzy at this end of the House.
Members who seek to criticise the Assembly for engaging itself in financial matters are not being entirely just when they consider the legislative structure under which the Assembly was set up and the similar structure of the Scottish Parliament. The House had very little choice but to deal with these matters at the beginning — otherwise there would have been no pay or rations at all. It is just the gauntlet that new legislatures have to run at the beginning of their lives. The purpose of appointing a Senior Salaries Review Body was to minimise the responsibility that the House bears in relation to the decision it takes on those matters.
I am certainly glad that the DUP will be supporting the deletion of clause3. That is consistent with the position it adopted in Committee. I would be interested to see in future the extent of its devotion to the recommendation of the Senior Salaries Review Body, which it supported when the matter first came before the Assembly in February last year.
There is an extent of misunderstanding about the timetables set in the legislation. The three-week period that the legislation set was not properly thought out and poorly drafted, and that initially moved the Committee to look at the question of what would happen during a period of dissolution. The point was that the clause could have been accidentally triggered over a period of dissolution were the Bill to stand with its original wording. That was the first matter to be addressed by the early amendments.
The issue for the House is whether it accepts the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body. If it chooses to do so, there will be some latitude for the House to set hurdles to be crossed before those recommendations impact, which is what I sought to do through the amendments that I have laid before the House.

Mr Speaker: There is not enough time now for either Mr Fee’s winding-up speech or for decisions which may well require divisions. I therefore propose, with the leave of the House, to suspend the sitting. We will resume at 2.30pm with questions, and the Consideration Stage of this Bill will continue at 4.00pm.
Debate suspended.
The sitting was suspended at 1.23 pm.
On resuming —

Assembly: Questions for Oral Answer

Mr Speaker: Before we move on to questions to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, I want to inform Members of an oversight that occurred on the published list of oral questions for next week. Two questions for oral answer by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety have been admitted in the name of the same Member. Members will know that a maximum of one question per Member per Department is permitted. The Member who tabled the question has agreed that number four on the published list — AQO 353/99 — will not be called but will, instead, receive a written answer.
May I take this opportunity to remind Members of the need to observe the rules on the number of questions permitted for each Question Time. Where a question for oral answer has been directed to the wrong Department and the matter is not the responsibility of the Minister answering, it is wholly inappropriate for a Member to ask a supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions

Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Civic Forum

Mr David Ford: 1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister when the first meeting of the Civic Forum is to take place.
(AQO 282/99)

Mr Sean Neeson: 2. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail progress made towards the establishment of the Civic Forum.
(AQO281/99)

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister when the composition of the Civic Forum will be announced.
(AQO 283/99)

Mr Seamus Close: 6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to give a date for the first meeting of the Civic Forum.
(AQO 280/99)

Prof Monica McWilliams: 7. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to confirm the progress to date on the issue of staffing for the Civic Forum and to give an indication of when the Civic Forum will be established.
(AQO 311/99)

Mr Donovan McClelland: 10. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what progress has been made towards the establishment and operation of the Civic Forum and to list representations made on the same.
(AQO 309/99)

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 11. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister when the Civic Forum is to be established.
(AQO 302/99)

Mrs Eileen Bell: 12. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline work their office has done to establish the Civic Forum.
(AQO284/99)

Mr Seamus Mallon: With permission, I shall answer questions 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 together.
Paragraph 34 of strand one of the Good Friday Agreement provided that a consultative Forum would be established. It would comprise representatives of the business, trade-union and voluntary sectors and such other sectors as agreed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It would act as a consultative mechanism on social, economic and cultural issues.
The report approved by this Assembly in February1999 provided that the Civic Forum would have 60members as well as a chairman. Under the terms of the report, 54 of the nominations for the Forum would be processed under ten headings: voluntary and community; business; trade-union; churches; arts and sport; culture; agriculture and fisheries; community relations; education; and victims.
The report identified groups and organizations which were to be invited to nominate members for the Forum. A further six members, plus the chairperson, will be appointed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has been working with each of the sectors and, in some cases, assisting with bringing consortia together to draw up a nominating process. Each sector will submit a selection process to us for approval, by the end of June, and we will then carry out the remainder of the process during July and August.
We have had representations about the establishment of the Civic Forum from 54 individuals and organizations. The submissions came from representatives of business, churches, cultural organizations, trade unions, community groups, housing, victims’ groups, the education sector, professional and medical groups, and women’s groups. A list of all the representations has been placed in the library.
In our report of February1999 we undertook to have the Civic Forum established within sixmonths of devolution. The chairperson and members of the Forum are to be appointed in September, and its first plenary meeting will take place in October.
The Forum will wish to consider where it will be based, and a number of locations are currently being considered as possible venues for its plenary meetings, but decisions will not be taken until it has been established. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will provide the initial administrative support to the Civic Forum, and the permanent staffing needs will be agreed, in consultation with the Forum, once it has been established.

Mr David Ford: I thank the Minister for his lengthy and detailed response and, in particular, for the dates that have now been given. He spoke at length about the criteria that would be applied for the appointment of 54 of the Forum members. Could he give us some detail as to whether he and the First Minister have finalised the criteria for the six nominees in their direct gift? Specifically, has he reached any conclusion following my question on 7February as to whether members of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP will be disbarred from those posts?

Mr Seamus Mallon: When there are so many questions grouped, the answer has to be rather lengthy. No decision has been taken in respect of nominations by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on the criteria by which appointments will be made. We will review the nominations put forward from each sector and take account of the range of expertise and experience needed to inform the deliberations of the Forum on social, economic and cultural matters. We will seek to ensure that the Forum has the appropriate balance to enable it to fully represent all sections of the community in NorthernIreland.
The final part of the Member’s question related to the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP. I assure the hon Member that the criteria we will use, and the practice we implement, will not result in that type of process. Given the experience of recent years, that must surely be to the disadvantage of the Alliance Party.

Mr Sean Neeson: I welcome the statement by the Deputy First Minister that a date has now been set for the establishment of the Civic Forum. As it will happen soon, I think it would be important, and helpful, if this House could be given some idea about where the Forum is going to be located. The Minister referred to the matter in his statement.

Mr Seamus Mallon: A number of venues have been mooted. It is no secret, and one could speculate as to where they may be. There are various suitable venues throughout the North of Ireland. However, the First Minister and I would be very keen that the Forum is actually part of the community, that it is not set apart from it and that it will operate in a way that is close to the community. It would be invidious to list some of the options, but those options may not be the right ones in relation to the general view that the Forum should be part of the community. I would not hesitate to say that the Waterfront Hall has been under consideration. Other venues throughout the North of Ireland have been considered — even Armagh was mentioned. I assure the hon Member that the location will be decided in the best interests of the Forum.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: Will the Minister give an assurance that the principles of equality and transparency, as outlined in the Good Friday Agreement, will be adhered to in the Civic Forum?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The nominating sectors are aware of the importance of using appropriate processes to select their nominees based soundly on merit. Each sector will submit its proposed selection process to us for approval, and we will seek to ensure that these principles have been adhered to. Additionally, it is crucially important that it is not just the merit principle we must ensure. We must also ensure that the Forum is representative of the entire community in Northern Ireland.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I also welcome the Minister’s statement. Would the Minister take this opportunity to outline the means by which the Civic Forum will make its views on economic and social matters known to this body?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the hon Member for his question. Obviously the means will be initially by deliberation. For some considerable time there has been consultation with the social partners. Secondly, there will be debate within the Forum. The Assembly will be interested in and aware of that debate. Thirdly, there will be direct consultation between the Forum and the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister or a relevant Minister, or, indeed, in whatever circumstances the Assembly decides that it should operate.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I apologise for coming in late.
How many staff will be employed to service the Civic Forum, and have these jobs been widely advertised?

Mr Seamus Mallon: It is impossible at this stage to say what the staffing requirements for the Forum will be. The hon Member will agree that it will be a matter for the Civic Forum to decide on the number and the duties of those who will be servicing it. We have made financial provision, if my memory serves me right, of around £300,000 to set up the Forum. The Forum will then make recommendations to us on its staffing requirements, and until such times as that is done, it will be serviced initially, and I repeat initially, from within the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Ministers: Assembly Responsibilities

Mr Derek Hussey: 5. asked the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister what steps have been or will be taken to ensure that Ministers act responsibly towards departmental Committees and respect the will of the Assembly.
(AQO 270/99)

Mr Seamus Mallon: The role of departmental Committees is set out in the Good Friday Agreement and reflected in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Paragraph 9 of strand one says
"The Committees will have a scrutiny, policy development and consultation role with respect to the Department with which each is associated."
Paragraph 22 says
"All Ministers will liaise regularly with their respective Committees."
Section 29 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provides for the establishment of Assembly Committees and for the conferral of powers on them as described in paragraph 9 of strand one. Ministers should consult widely while formulating policy and take account of the views of their Committees and, indeed, of the Assembly, in accordance with the provision of the agreement and in the interests of good government.
The Pledge of Office commits Ministers to supporting and acting in accordance with all decisions of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee has adopted a ministerial code which commits Ministers to being as open as possible with the Assembly and to ensure that the information given is accurate and truthful. The code also sets out the circumstances in which a Minister is obliged to bring matters to the attention of the Executive Committee. This includes matters which cut across the responsibility of two or more Ministers and issues which require agreement on prioritisation or the agreement of a common position, or which have implications for the programme of government. In addition, all significant proposed policy initiatives or significant statements of policy, including legislative proposals, must be brought to the attention of the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the secretary to the Executive Committee for possible referral to that Committee.
Consideration is being given to the most appropriate way of bringing the ministerial code to the attention of Members.

Mr Derek Hussey: I thank the Deputy First Minister for his response. However, I am sure that the Deputy First Minister will be well aware of the sincere concerns that exist in the House and, indeed, in the community at large about the way in which a Minister may act. I am thinking of the time when the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety acted in a manner which could best be described as unilaterally independent and, at worst, dictatorial when, in acting, she ignored the cross-community opinion of her Committee and the will of the majority of the Assembly. Can the Deputy First Minister assure us that, by whatever means, through Ministers or the Executive Committee, such a situation will not recur?

Mr Seamus Mallon: We should have recourse to both the agreement and the legislation. Executive authority is discharged on behalf of the Assembly by the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the 10departmental Ministers. Paragraph 24 of strand one of the agreement states
"Ministers will have full executive authority in their respective areas of responsibility, within any broad programme agreed by the Executive Committee and endorsed by the Assembly as a whole."
On the role of the Assembly’s Committees, paragraph 9 of strand one states that they
"have a scrutiny, policy development and consultation role with respect to the Department with which each is associated."
Paragraph 22 requires a Minister to liaise regularly with the Executive Committee. Section 29 of the NorthernIreland Act provides for the establishment of Assembly Committees and the conferral of those powers on them. All executive authority therefore rests with the Ministers, rather than with the Assembly or its Committees. A departmental Committee cannot override a ministerial decision, nor can the Assembly, except by voting down a piece of legislation. Having said that, in terms of the record, the legislation and the agreement, Ministers should take full account of their departmental Committees’ views when formulating policies, just as they should take account of the views of other organisations and interested parties. We hope that all Ministers will want to have an open, transparent and inclusive approach to the departmental Committees, recognising the role they have been given by the Good Friday Agreement.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Is the Deputy First Minister aware that a majority of people voting in both the Assembly and the Education Committee voted to have the Union flag flying over Government buildings on authorised days? Is he aware that the Minister of Education ignored those votes? What sanctions, if any, have he and the First Minister imposed on the offending Minister? Has he been summoned to any meetings or had papers withheld? Has he had threats that his departmental responsibilities will be taken over, or is the nature of this Administration so capricious that these sanctions are reserved only for members of anti-agreement parties?

Mr Seamus Mallon: As the Member well knows, no authority resides in the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister in relation to this matter. No legislation resides with anybody, be it the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister or the Secretary of State, so it is not in the power of any of those persons to send letters or to sanction anyone. The reality is, as the Member well knows, that the Secretary of State has tabled an Order in Council which has not yet been activated. When it is activated it will be a matter of the Secretary of State’s own choosing. Let us be clear that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has no power of sanction in this matter, nor has it any power of decision in legislation. The Member will also be aware that part of the Order in Council states that the Secretary of State should consult the Assembly. I look forward to seeing the methods he will employ to do that.

Mr Speaker: I urge Members to recognise that the more concise they are, the more questions we can get through. We are almost two thirds of the way through the Questions to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and we have not made enormous progress.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: As a supplementary to question 5, can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister tell me what steps have been taken to ensure that Committee Chairs act responsibly towards Committee members and respect their will? The work of the Committee of the Centre has yet to begin due to the inability of the Chair to treat all members in a spirit of equality.

Mr Speaker: Order. The question is out of order. It is well outside the capacity of the Ministers to respond to a question of that kind.

Mrs Eileen Bell: Mr Speaker, following the comments of the Deputy First Minister about transparency in relation to the departmental Committees, would you be indulgent enough to let me know if the budget of £300,000 that has been quoted for the Civic Forum will be communicated to the Committee of the Centre?

Mr Seamus Mallon: That is a notional figure that has been mooted by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to set up and ensure the initial stages of the CivicForum. That of course is not its budget. When its budget is being decided, it will no doubt be done through representations to the Department of Finance and Personnel and referred to the Committee of the Centre.

Mr Speaker: The sprightly Deputy First Minister was so quick to his feet that I did not have an opportunity of ruling that the question was out of order because it was a supplementary to the previous question. That is a reflection on the agility, not only verbally but physically, of the Deputy First Minister.

European Union Matters

Mr Tommy Gallagher: 8. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if any meetings are planned with the British Government to discuss European Union matters.
(AQO 299/99)

Rt Hon David Trimble: There are regular meetings at both ministerial and official level at which European Union matters are discussed. A ministerial group for European co-ordination meets every four to six weeks in the Cabinet Office to co-ordinate and promote Government policy on Europe, which includes Ministers from the devolved regions. The next meeting is scheduled for 27June. Joint ministerial Committees provide a forum for all the devolved regions to discuss matters of interest with the Government. There will be a joint ministerial Committee on European Union matters.
In addition, individual Ministers meet their counterparts regularly to discuss their own policy areas, many of which have an EU dimension. EU policy is an excepted matter, but, in recognition of the fact that many devolved areas have a major EU dimension, the Government have acknowledged the need to involve the devolved Administrations in the formulation, negotiation and implementation of policy towards the European Union. This is reflected in the EU concordat. The concordat also recognises the role of the North/South Ministerial Council in considering the EU dimension of relevant matters, although each Government retains sovereignty on the issue.
The Deputy First Minister and I, accompanied by Mr Durkan, will be in Brussels for a day of engagements on Wednesday of this week. We will be meeting President Prodi, Commissioners Barnier, Byrne and Kinnock, as well as a number of Members of the European Parliament. The main purpose of the visit is structural funds, but it is our objective that the Northern Ireland Administration establish strong direct relations with the European institutions. This is an issue that we will be discussing with SirStephenWall, the United Kingdom’s permanent representative to the European Union.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I note from the First Minister’s comments that regular meetings take place on these issues.
In 1996 the British Government opted out of a valuable EU subsidy scheme for schools milk. Consequently, children lost an entitlement as EU citizens to subsidised milk used for catering in all school kitchens and subsidised milk in all secondary schools. Will the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister put pressure on the British Government to reinstate these subsidies? Does the First Minister agree that the reinstatement of this scheme would make a significant contribution to the health and well-being of children here and that the resultant increase in milk consumption would also benefit the hard-pressed agriculture industry? The reinstatement of this scheme would involve no extra financial implications for this devolved Assembly, and it could remove the threat of closure facing some school kitchens, especially in rural areas.

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Member, like nearly everyone else here, will have benefited from free school milk. I certainly take the point that he makes with regard to the benefit to the milk industry and the agriculture industry generally. On the specifics of the matter, I cannot comment. I am not aware of the detail of the decision in 1996, but we will look at the matter that the hon Member has raised and consider what we should do about it with our counterparts.

John Taylor: Is the First Minister aware that our neighbour, the Republic of Ireland, is now suffering the highest inflation rate for 18years — the highest level of inflation in Euroland? It has the potential now to reach nearly 6% and kill the Celtictiger. Will he bring to the attention of Her Majesty’s Government the implications of surrendering control over interest rates and thereby exchange rates?

Rt Hon David Trimble: It has been observed that within what is now called Euroland, namely those countries which are part of the European single currency, the "one size fits all" interest rate is a matter which can cause problems for particular countries. Whether that is the case with the Republic of Ireland, I am not in a position to comment on at the moment. I am quite sure, in view of the comments that have been made in recent days, and particularly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Government are weighing, and will continue to weigh, very carefully the economic pros and cons of the single currency.

Mr Pat McNamee: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. My question relates very much to the question that has been just asked. Britain’s remaining outside the European monetary system is causing particular difficulties for businesses and individuals in the border areas of this part of Ireland because of the continuing fluctuation rate of the euro. Will the First Minister consider, in his discussions with the Government, the difficulties that businesses and individuals endure?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Member is referring to the difficulties encountered in border areas because of the differences in exchange rates. Of course it is not just a matter of the exchange rate; different fiscal regimes operate too. The Member will be aware of the very considerable disadvantage that exists with regard to petrol stations and other retailers where there are strong and significant differences between prices on both sides of the border. This is not strictly an EU matter, rather it is one for our national Government, and we have raised it with them on a number of occasions. We have explored the possibility of trying to have some sort of relief, consistent with EU policy. However, EU policy is quite a disincentive on this. There is a danger that any provision made to assist business in border areas will constitute state aid.
We have also raised with the Government the problems caused by the extensive amount of crime that has become associated with this and the extensive racketeering that is going on in these areas. This is resulting in the loss of hundreds of millions of pounds of revenue and is seriously distorting the operation of the economy and society in the areas affected.

Decommissioning

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: 9. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if any reports have been received on progress made by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning since the latest statement of the IRA, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO 298/99)

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) was appointed by the British and Irish Governments and makes reports to the Governments rather than to this body. No report has been made since 11 February of this year. In a letter of 15May, the Secretary of State, Mr Mandelson, said
"We expect the IICD to make regular reports, whose content must be for the IICD to determine. They will be published promptly by the two Governments."

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Can the First Minister indicate the timetable that he thinks should be set for decommissioning? When does he believe it should start? When will the international monitors commence their work? When will they report progress, and when will they complete their work? Does he not now recognise that he is being taken for a ride by the IRA?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am not going to give any timetable, which would be entirely speculative. I refer the hon Member to the statement made on 6 May in which the IRA leadership referred to putting in place within weeks a confidence-building measure to confirm that its weapons remain secure.
Of course, the honMember can work out that the phrase "within weeks" contains a time dimension, and I am sure that he can see that the undertaking by the IRA is one that needs to be redeemed in the very near future.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: The FirstMinister stated on Thursday that he was awaiting a confidence-building measure by the Provisional IRA, in line with what he supposed to be its obligations to GendeChastelain. Were his comments more to do with the fact that his party’s executive was about to meet, rather than with the fact that he realised that it is not known whether decommissioning will actually ever take place?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I covered that matter in my previous question when I referred to the IRA statement that it would put the specifics of the matter in place within weeks. On Thursday, I was replying to a question, just as I am doing today.

Mr Speaker: The time for these questions is up.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have these questions on the Order Paper, and it is strange that the last question was answered in the first group of questions. You are well aware, MrSpeaker, that when Ministers in the House of Commons group questions together, they still answer the same number that are usually answered at Question Time. It is entirely unfair for a Member in twelfth place to have his question answered in the first batch. It is possible therefore to get round the system even if a question is put down late, as long as it is similar to earlier questions. That is why there was such a long list. In the House of Commons, only three or four questions would be grouped together — never more.

Mr Speaker: The Member will be aware from a scan of the list that it was not that the last question was answered first, although he would be the first to admit that, on occasion, the last may be first. Eight questions out of 12 covered the same issue. I took a number of questions — I did not call all those Members who had put down questions on the list, even for supplementaries. I ensured that every question at least got asked, was allowed a supplementary from the questioner and at least one further question. That is the most that I can do. As long as Members exercise increasing discipline by phrasing their questions and answers as concisely as possible, we can get through more questions. It would be extremely unusual in the House of Commons for two thirds of all questions on the list to be on the same subject. We must not take up the time of the Minister for Regional Development, who will answer questions for 30 minutes.

Regional Development

Dromore Bypass

Mr Edwin Poots: 1. asked the Minister for Regional Development to indicate when work is likely to commence on the Dromore bypass.
(AQO 291/99)

Mr Peter Robinson: The Dromore bypass was opened in 1972. I therefore assume that this question relates to the proposal to construct an underpass at Hillsborough Road, Dromore. Subject to the successful acquisition of land and the completion of the necessary statutory procedures — without the need for a public inquiry — the scheme is expected to commence in January2001.

Mr Edwin Poots: I welcome the fact that the work is scheduled to commence in January2001, as the project has already been delayed. Has consideration been given to incorporating the Milebush Road into the current proposal? That would further alleviate the traffic crossing the carriageway and would perhaps save more lives than the initial project will do.

Mr Peter Robinson: I understand that there would be difficulties in achieving design standards at Milebush Road, and the increased costs would have to be considered. The real benefit comes from the scheme at HillsboroughRoad, and the Department is satisfied that that is the best value for money, and a scheme that will bring the best results in the local area.

A8 (Belfast-Larne Road)

Mr Roger Hutchinson: 2. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline the current position in regard to the capital improvement programme (1999-2001) for the A8 Belfast to Larne route, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO 310/99)

Mr Peter Robinson: I am pleased to confirm that, following extensive consultations with district councils and the general public, my Department’s Roads Service has identified a £10million package of improvements to the A8 route. These include: a roundabout at the A8/Doagh Road junction; dualling a 1·5 mile stretch of the carriageway from Doagh Road to Coleman’s Corner; a roundabout at Coleman’s Corner; a roundabout at the junction of the A8 and the A57 Templepatrick Road; a link road from the A57/A8 roundabout to the Carrickfergus Road/Straid Road junction; speed reduction measures in Ballynure; climbing lanes both north and south of Ballynure; a roundabout at Antiville; and a roundabout at Millbrook with a free-flow lane.
The Roads Service is about to initiate the various statutory procedures. The environmental statement is due to be published on the twenty-eighth of this month. This will be followed by the publication of the direction order in October and the notice of intention to make a vesting order in early 2001. Subject to the successful completion of the statutory procedures, and assuming that no public inquiries are necessary, the improvements could commence in mid-2001.
I recognise the importance of the A8 as part of the trans-European road network and acknowledge the benefit this development will have for Northern Ireland’s links to external markets.

Mr Speaker: I am not sure whether the Member could possibly have a supplementary question after that, but I will call him anyway.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: And there’s more.
This announcement will be welcomed by the people of Larne, and of East Antrim in general. The A8 capital improvement scheme is long overdue. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to the crucial aspect of this scheme: greater road safety. I look forward to the commencement of improvement work without further delay and thank the Minister for giving this commitment to the people of East Antrim.

Mr Speaker: Order. I was right to be uncertain about the possibility of a supplementary question. If the Member has a concise supplementary to put, so be it. Otherwise I will move to the next questioner.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: Does the Minister agree — Sorry. [Laughter.]

Mr Peter Robinson: The only thing I would add is that the timetable I set out is subject to the need for public inquiries. If an inquiry becomes necessary, the dates could slip by six months or so.

Mr Ken Robinson: Does the Minister agree that, welcome as the proposals for the A8 are — and I have lobbied for the upgrading of this road for over 110 years — the real solution to freeing up the A8 for strategic traffic back and forth to the port of Larne lies in the proactive development of a rejuvenated commuter service on both the Larne-Belfast and Bleach Green-Antrim railway lines, and in the urgent completion of the short stretch of the A2 between Jordanstown and Greenisland? It is the inadequacy of the other transport links in East Antrim that is forcing commuter traffic on to the A8, and that will nullify all the arrangements that the Minister has announced today.

Mr Speaker: I draw the attention of Members to the fact that a question is something that requires a response: yes, no, or some information. It is not an opportunity to make a statement of opinion, however well-informed. It is extremely difficult for the Minister to respond if there is no clear question. I am not clear what the question was, but nevertheless I will give the Minister an opportunity to reply.

Mr Peter Robinson: I think I recognised a question there about railways. During the period of suspension, Minister of State, Adam Ingram, initiated a task force to look at a number of railway-related matters. I expect the task force to report as a matter of urgency on the whole rail network. That brings us to the issue of funding. I hope that I will have the Member’s support when I look for increased transportation funding within the Northern Ireland budget.

Mr Roy Beggs: Is the Minister aware that over 16,500 vehicles per day travel along the A8; that substantial redevelopment continues in Larne west; that Stena Sealink are returning to Larne in the autumn and that the Millbrook and Antiville junctions are becoming increasingly more dangerous accident black-spots? Will the Minister enable improvements to these junctions to proceed independently should planning delays occur elsewhere?

Mr Peter Robinson: Yes, I can give that assurance. There are a number of separate features to the A8 route proposals, so if one or two of them are slowed down because of statutory processes, or because of inquiries, it will not hold us back on the others.

Sewage Treatment (Crossgar and Killyleagh)

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 3. asked the Minister for Regional Development what assessment he has made of consultation between the Water Service and the local community concerning the transfer of sewage from Crossgar to Killyleagh, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO 276/99)

Mr Peter Robinson: This scheme was developed during the period of direct rule. The proposals to transfer waste water from Crossgar for treatment at Killyleagh were explained to public representatives who enquired about the scheme, but there was no direct consultation with the local community. I am aware of the concerns expressed by local public representatives and residents about the impact of the scheme on the Killyleagh area. I am determined to ensure that the Water Service is as open as possible about its development proposals and about the impact that they will have on local communities. I have asked RobertMartin, the chief executive of the Water Service, to consider how, under devolution, we can enhance our consultation arrangements with local representatives and, through them, with the public on issues such as this.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I am delighted to hear the Minister say that his Department is going to take more notice of the local community. Killyleagh may well have extra capacity at present. We are aware though that new developments are taking place all the time in both Crossgar and Killyleagh, and, indeed, neighbouring areas. Apart from the apparent withholding of public information to residents of both areas, and in view of the minimalist savings per year, surely the Department should —

Mr Speaker: Order. Members must be aware that the purpose of the exercise is to ask questions.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: It is coming.

Mr Speaker: So is Christmas. Please put the question and give the Minister a chance to respond.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Will the Minister agree to provide a modern sewerage system for Crossgar and Killyleagh, thereby fulfilling the wishes of the local community and, most importantly, the local representatives?

Mr Peter Robinson: I am not sure to what extent the local representatives use the sewerage system in Killyleagh or Crossgar, but if we take into account all the housing proposals for Killyleagh and Crossgar up to the year 2021, the Killyleagh works will be operating at approximately 70% of its capacity. There is still considerable room for further development. Indeed, Killyleagh could probably double in size, given the capacity of the works.
The Department is well satisfied that the standard of the Killyleagh works is satisfactory for the purposes of the area. There will be no additional problems in terms of the environment. No new structures are being erected as a result of this proposal, and although I was not there when the decision was taken, I do not believe that I would have taken a different one. I might have gone about it differently and had more consultation, but I suspect, with respect to the hon Member, that this is the sensible decision both from the practical and financial points of view.

John Taylor: I am very disappointed that the Minister would have taken exactly the same decision to pump sewage from Crossgar into the Killyleagh sewerage works. Is he aware that the net saving will only be £15,000 for each of the next 20 years? Is he aware that the decision was taken on the basis of there being only 335 new houses in Killyleagh in the next 20 years, whereas applications have already been made for 1000 houses over the next 10 years and some have been granted? Is he aware that for Killyleagh a new tannery has already been given planning permission?
Finally, is he aware that the Killyleagh sewage plant is on the flood plain of the Dibney river? With the advent of global warming there is likely to be flooding there, and with the Crossgar sewage going into Killyleagh, the works there will be flooded several times per year. Environmentally it is bad for Killyleagh, and it restricts growth. Does the Minister therefore agree with the request of the Killyleagh Development Association that he should immediately review the decision of the former direct-rule Minister?

Mr Peter Robinson: The immediate saving would be about £250,000 in capital costs, as well as the ongoing annual savings that have been referred to. With regard to capacity, if the righthonGentleman had listened to my previous answer he would have heard me saying that I had taken into account all of the prospective applications up to 2021. Therefore I had taken into account the building programme to which he refers. Even with that building programme, and the building programme for Crossgar, it still only takes the capacity up to 70%. On the particular proposal in relation to Killyleagh, I am, of course, happy to receive any delegation. I have no note of any elected representatives asking to see me on this matter, but I am happy to speak to them about the issue and to put the various facts before them.

Strategic Development Plan

Mr Joe Byrne: 4. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will undertake to ensure continuity of policy in relation to the implementation of the Department’s draft strategic development document ‘Shaping our Future’.
(AQO 271/99)

Mr Peter Robinson: I am happy to give the undertaking being sought by the Member for West Tyrone. The Strategic Planning (Northern Ireland) Order1999, which is the legislative basis for preparing the regional development strategy, includes the provision which requires all Government Departments to have regard to the regional development strategy. Under the legislation, my Department is responsible for co-ordinating implementation of the strategy, and I have invited views on the need for new machinery at regional and sub-regional levels to implement the strategy and to provide clear leadership in ensuring effective and co-ordinated action. Once the regional development strategy is adopted as policy, it will be reviewed every five years to ensure that it continues to meet the development needs of the region.

Mr Joe Byrne: I thank the Minister for the outline of the answer to my question. Given the whole problem of public transport in Northern Ireland, and, in particular, the poor state of our current railway system, how does the Minister propose to impress upon his ministerial Colleagues the need to find the £2billion that is required to improve matters? Can the Minister outline how he foresees the negotiations going to try to obtain this £2billion to allow a modern railway system to be put in place over the next 10years?

Mr Peter Robinson: The transportation needs of Northern Ireland go beyond the railways but certainly include them. Roads and bus transport are included as well. In a public interview, I have indicated that I regard a figure of about £2billion being necessary over the next 10years. There are a number of possible ways that money could be raised. One of them is if the United Kingdom’s Transport Minister proceeds, on the basis that the press are indicating, to initiate a strategy of expenditure in the region of £140billion for the United Kingdom as a whole — half of which would come from the private sector. If that were to happen, then, using the Barnett formula, something in the region of £2billion, believe it or not, would come to Northern Ireland over the next 10years. This is, of course, providing that the Barnett formula is used, and that the money, on arrival in Northern Ireland, is not diverted to other uses.
As far as the negotiations in Northern Ireland are concerned, I have already outlined a case to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on the needs. There are clear immediate needs for funding in the transport section of my Department, which I hope can be met. I have already spoken in detail with the Regional Development Committee; I have submitted papers to the office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and I have taken every available opportunity, publicly and privately, to press the case for more funding for transportation.

Mr Alan McFarland: The regional development strategy has many fine ideas but the financial cost is likely to be heavy. How does the Minister see public/private partnerships fitting in with his policy and is he considering, for example, a privately funded rapid rail transit system for Greater Belfast to alleviate the present rail crisis, particularly on the Bangor-Belfast line?

Mr Peter Robinson: The Member is right. There is likely to be an identification of very considerable costs, costs not simply to the Department for Regional Development. The regional strategy deals with the whole swathe of Government and everyday life. Therefore in the implementation of that regional strategy there will be pressure on the budgets of a number of Departments. Regarding those matters which relate to the Department for Regional Development, we would identify transport as being an area where, clearly, significant improvement has to be made. The task force which I mentioned earlier will be looking at a number of options in relation to railway — I suppose the Member is interested specifically in the railway line from Bangor to Belfast.
I have no doubt that one aspect of its consideration is what the future for that railway line might be and how it might be improved.

Regional Strategic Development Plan

Mr Conor Murphy: 5. asked the Minister for Regional Development what steps have been taken to ensure that the regional strategic development plan has been equality proofed.
(AQO 306/99)

Mr Peter Robinson: The underlying objectives in the preparation of the draft regional strategic framework clearly included the issue of our divided society and the need for a balanced approach for future development. The draft published in December 1998 was prepared after extensive consultation within and outside Government. Equity considerations were addressed by an inter-departmental steering group including representation from the Central Community Relations Unit, which at that time was responsible for equality issues. The final regional development strategy will recognise the importance of strategic issues such as equality of opportunity. The spacial development elements of the strategy currently being worked up will seek to achieve balances between urban and rural and east and west so as to provide for equality of opportunity for everyone. The regional development strategy has been included in my Department’s draft equality scheme, and equality impact assessments will be carried out on the regional development strategy and its main components, the spacial development strategy and the strategic planning guidelines. In addition, equality impact assessments will be undertaken on a number of regional planning policy statements, which will be produced within the framework established by the strategy.

Mr Conor Murphy: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the importance of the regional development strategy in that it will govern regional development in this part of Ireland for the next 25 years, and given the opportunity it therefore presents to attempt to address some of the unequal development that has taken place here over the decades, particularly on an east/west basis, why does the draft equality scheme for the Department propose to impact assess the regional development strategy in year five rather than in year one?

Mr Peter Robinson: First of all, I am happy that the draft regional strategic framework was given a warm welcome right across the Province, east and west, and received very supportive comments from councils of all political backgrounds. Regarding the equality scheme, the Member concerned is on the Regional Development Committee and will have a first-hand opportunity to deal with the equality scheme and any aspect of it which he believes is not appropriate.

Trust Ports

Mr P J Bradley: 7. asked the Minister for Regional Development to introduce legislation to extend the powers of trust ports.
(AQO 261/99)

Mr Peter Robinson: I am currently developing proposals aimed at extending the powers of trust ports in Northern Ireland. This is a complex and sizeable task, however, and the intention is to bring forward proposals for consideration by the Assembly at the earliest possible date. I anticipate these proposals taking the form of both draft primary and subordinate legislation. In taking the task forward I am anxious to work in partnership with the trust ports and will be encouraging them to assist by reviewing their existing local legislation.

Mr P J Bradley: Does the Minister agree with the statement in ‘Shaping our Future’ that Warrenpoint port will have a significant role to play in the future economics of the eastern seaboard?

Mr Peter Robinson: It would be easy for me to say "Yes" and sit down. However, last week I visited Warrenpoint and was impressed with this compact port. The managers of the port also impressed me — they have overcome difficulties in recent years in a way that many other ports would admire. The loss of business, because of the removal of one of their main customers, was something that would hit any port hard, but they have managed to overcome this difficulty and to increase the usage of the port to a higher level than previously. I recognise that it is an important element of the regional strategic framework. Its importance is identified in the draft strategic plan and is recognised by my Department. It is also a very important element of the economy in that area.

Mr John Dallat: Will the Minister assure the House that those appointed to trust ports are properly qualified for the tasks they undertake? Will he also assure us that the appointments are properly advertised and that all aspects of the equality legislation are complied with?

Mr Peter Robinson: I know where the Member is coming from. There are two elements in relation to trust ports in the legislation that we are considering: one is to extend the commercial ability and powers of trust ports; and the other is to make them more accountable. I have to look at a number of options for making them more accountable. Some argue that greater council representation might be helpful in that respect, and, when considering the issue, I may look at how well Coleraine has worked out.

Flags of Paramilitary Organisations

Mrs Eileen Bell: 8. asked the Minister for Regional Development what action he will take to ensure that flags of illegal paramilitary organisations are removed from the Department’s property.
(AQO 278/99)

Mr Peter Robinson: I do not condone any unauthorised use of Roads Service Property. The Roads Service will remove any materials such as flags, secretarian symbols and graffiti that have been displayed illegally on its property and are a danger to road users. In other instances where there is no danger, and in spite of there being no legislative requirement to do so, we will seek to remove such material on the advice of the RUC and where there is strong local support. Experience has shown that acting without local support is likely to lead to a proliferation of such material and put at risk the safety of staff tasked with the removal work. There is also the question of cost. When the Roads Service budget cannot meet its essential maintenance obligations, it is difficult to justify using resources on other activities which do not cause a danger to road users.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the Minister for his answer. The question of local support is something that is not as clear as it might be. It is a source of disquiet among people who wake up in the morning to find flags on telegraph poles and the roads festooned with different colours of paint and bunting. Will the Minister assure me that his Department will be in liaison with other bodies such as the RUC and the NorthernIreland Housing Executive over this issue?

Mr Peter Robinson: People react in different ways to the flying of flags, whether in their areas or in other areas. When the Department receives a complaint on these matters it contacts the RUC and any other relevant body involved. However, I am sure that the hon Lady will agree with me that it would be far better if people were to show allegiance to their country by flying the Union flag rather than through the use of paramilitary symbols.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I certainly would.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: May I ask the Minister for Regional Development if the Union flag or the Ulster flag were to cause an obstruction — I cannot remember the exact words he used — would he remove it.

Mr Peter Robinson: The requirement relates to a danger to road users. It would be ludicrous if the Department were to ignore a danger to road users when it has a duty of care. It might put a flag further up a flagpole or lamp post. It certainly would not be in the position of leaving a danger to road users. I think that would be understood by the local community.

Omagh, Newtownstewart and Strabane Bypasses

Mr Oliver Gibson: 9. asked the Minister for Regional Development what are the completion dates for stage3 of the Omagh bypass, the Newtownstewart bypass and the Strabane bypass and to confirm that funding is not dependent upon the sale of Belfast harbour, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO293/99).

Mr Peter Robinson: Subject to successful completion of the necessary statutory procedures and the availability of funds, the schemes are scheduled to be completed by the summer of 2002.
The Chancellor’s 1998 investment package for Northern Ireland provided additional funding for programmes including roads, schools and housing. These additional funds included an amount of £70million from the expected proceeds from the sale of the port of Belfast. If the sale does not proceed, it is possible that there will be an impact on the roads programme. This will be a matter for consideration by Ministers at the appropriate time.
The development of these schemes will ease the flow of through traffic on the Londonderry to Ballygawley route and provide benefits to local communities through the removal of traffic from town centres.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I thank the Minister. By 2002 we will be looking for a much-improved trans-European route. Would he meet again with the sub-regional district councils of Strabane, Omagh, Cookstown, Dungannon and Enniskillen, since they supplied many documents relating to ‘Shaping our Future’? His visit to ICBAN was appreciated, and since £20million is involved on our side of the border, would he ensure that that £20million is spent on our side of the border and is not devalued into punts?

Mr Peter Robinson: Of course, I am happy to meet district councils and deputations from district councils. Indeed, I have probably met deputations and been to district councils in about two thirds of the Province already. I would be happy to meet with them. I also welcome the interest that councils west of the Bann have shown in terms of the regional strategic framework. That framework sets out the importance of Londonderry as the second city and recognises the importance of having proper road corridors to and from Londonderry. There are also very clear indicators in the framework of the importance of roads going in a southerly direction as well.
For all of those reasons, I think that if the framework is adopted, people on the main road corridors can look forward to considerable improvement on their roads. That should help in terms of the access to local communities and by having significant value in terms of the economic regeneration in those areas.

Mr Speaker: The time for questions to this Minister is up.

The Environment

Enterprise Parks

Mr P J Bradley: 1. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will introduce legislation to facilitate demands for the provision of enterprise parks in the vicinity of rural towns and villages.
(AQO260/99)

Mr Sam Foster: Proposals for enterprise parks in the vicinity of rural towns and villages would come from the private or the community sector. My Department deals with such proposals in accordance with normal planning procedures. Whenever possible, my Department would consider such proposals in the interests of economic regeneration of the rural community sympathetically.

Mr P J Bradley: I thank the Minister for his answer. I would ask those employed in drawing up area plans to take note of his views. Does the Minister agree that his Department will have to liase with other Departments such as Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the Department for Regional Development and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development if a proper rural strategy is to be put in place?

Mr Sam Foster: Lead responsibility for rural planning strategy now rests with the Department for Regional Development, although my Department is responsible for taking account of that strategy in its development planning and development control activities. The strategy has not, as it were, a monopoly on any Department. I agree with the Member’s point that other Departments have important responsibilities in relation to rural areas as well. I also agree that discussion and co-operation between the relevant Departments is an important element of devising and implementing any future strategy.

Mr George Savage: I welcome the statements from the Minister. Small towns and villages have been allowed to expand and develop, yet no thought or consideration has been put into the planning of leisure and recreation facilities. Will the Department of the Environment look favourably on positive proposals coming forward and help relax planning controls?

Mr Sam Foster: The area plan process provides for the identification of zones to be set aside for commercial and industrial purposes. There is no need for new legislation to provide for enterprise parks. Our planning policy provides for them. We know what our planning policies are, and we use them when assessing any particular application.

Planning Legislation

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: 2. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will undertake to introduce legislation to curtail the trend towards demolition of houses to make room for apartment developments in South Belfast and elsewhere, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO 313/99)

Mr Sam Foster: I am considering making more use of conservation area designations. This would prevent uncontrolled demolition in areas such as South Belfast. This, of course, would be subject to consultation with the Historic Buildings Council and district councils.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I welcome the Minister’s comments. I understand that there is an effort to reinforce planning legislation through these conservation areas to ensure that the wanton destruction of good quality homes in neighbourhoods does not continue. Is it possible to ensure that we begin to evolve a comprehensive plan that will develop the city to the north and east rather than to the south and west where it is overspilling continuously and will any funds be made available? I know from personal experience of the built heritage section of the Department that funds are very scant, and any useful move will require funding.

Mr Sam Foster: Funding is a problem at this time. We are all aware that my Department is under-resourced in many ways. We have a commitment for grant aid to the value of £4million for help with the built heritage but an annual allocation of only about £1·7million to deal with it. So there is a moratorium at present. I am aware of the concern among many Members representing various parts of Northern Ireland, and South Belfast in particular, that the Planning Service appears not to respond to property speculation in their areas. The present-day issues are these: the population is increasing; people tend to set up house at a younger age than before; and, while high-density housing has a contribution to make, some apartment developments are seen to have had a detrimental effect on the character of their areas. These are, I agree, complex issues and I hope to be able to address some of them in the near future.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Does the Minister agree, in the light of the fact that apartment development leads to a higher population density and use of cars, that there needs to be much closer co-operation between the Planning Service and the Roads Service when applications for development are being considered?

Mr Sam Foster: I agree. It is absolutely necessary to co-operate with different Departments. As I said earlier, no one Department has a monopoly on provision. We work together. We need to work together, and we need to discuss these issues because there are problems. Of that there is no doubt. We will certainly be working together to try to alleviate the problems referred to.

Mr Sammy Wilson: In the light of the comments that Mr Foster has made to the last two Members who spoke, will he explain the impact that this is likely to have on the target which his Department has set for providing at least 40% to 50% of the new homes required for the Greater Belfast area on brownfield sites within the city boundary?

Mr Sam Foster: As I said in an earlier answer, these issues are complex, and I hope to be able to address some of them in the very near future. I accept the hon Member’s point, but there are difficulties galore. My Department will take each area into consideration to ensure that we provide where we can and that difficult situations are assessed to take into consideration the points made.

Ms Jane Morrice: Does the Minister agree that important parts of our built environment and heritage are being demolished because of a lack of legislation in this area? Has the Minister any intention of doing something in the meantime, such as spot listing, to ensure that our heritage is not destroyed in this way?

Mr Sam Foster: Yes. Plans are afoot at this time to control the issues to which the Member referred. At one time we identified areas of townscape character, and a guidance note was published for each development. However, the areas of townscape character designation do not provide protection from demolition in the same way that a statutorily designated conservation area does. Unauthorised demolition in a conservation area is a criminal offence. The Department is now considering greater use of conservation-area designations to protect buildings from demolition. In addition, it is considering introducing legislation which would bring demolition within the meaning of development for the purposes of requiring planning permission. Currently, demolition does not, in most instances, require planning permission, so we are taking steps to alleviate that.

Mr David Ford: I welcome the Minister’s response to AlasdairMcDonnell and JaneMorrice on the virtues of preserving older buildings. Is the Minister aware of the recent death of MrHyndmanMilliken, a constituent of mine, who played a major part in the renovation of the historic building we are in today?

Mr Sam Foster: Yes. I was indeed saddened to learn of the recent passing of Mr Milliken, and I am sure I speak on behalf of all Members when I express our sympathy to his wife and family circle. I know he spent many long hours on the gold and silver gilding work in this Chamber during the recent refurbishment of the Building. The craftmanship which we see around us on the window and door moulding and the ceiling is testament to his skill and ability. It is, indeed, a lasting tribute, and we regret his passing, which is a real loss both to his wife and family circle and to society in general.

Road Safety Officers

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 3. asked the Minister of the Environment how many road safety officers there are in Northern Ireland and how this figure compares per capita with the other regions in the United Kingdom.
(AQO 300/99)

Mr Sam Foster: At present, 11 road safety education officers are employed by the Department in Northern Ireland. This represents a ratio of one road safety education officer per 154,000 people. This compares unfavourably to the ratio of one officer per 90,000 people in Great Britain. A regional breakdown for Great Britain is not available.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: Considering the number of road traffic-calming measures that have already been taken in Northern Ireland, and those ongoing — many of them in large built-up communities — can the Minister tell us if his Department has any plans to increase the number of road safety officers and provide a more comprehensive education programme for our schools?

Mr Sam Foster: We are all aware that road safety education officers provide extremely valuable practical support for teachers in schools across Northern Ireland. I am currently seeking additional resources to increase the number of road safety education officers to 18, in line with the per-capita average for Great Britain. I appreciate the support of the Assembly Environment Committee in trying to secure these additional resources.

Rev William McCrea: Does the Minister acknowledge that when the Environment Committee was dealing with matters for extra funding, they targeted this as the number-one priority in view of the many accidents and deaths on our roads? Does he agree that many of the present number of road safety education officers are totally exhausted and that there is an urgent need to increase their number? Will he ensure that the £0·215 million necessary to employ an adequate numbers of these officers is activated immediately?

Mr Sam Foster: Yes, indeed. As part of wider public expenditure cuts, the number of road safety education officers in Northern Ireland was reduced progressively from 16 in 1991 to 11 in 1998. We are currently seeking additional resources to increase this figure. These officers are of great value to the community in general. It is something which is foremost in our minds. It may not be the absolute priority, but it certainly runs neck and neck with planning, which is a big problem so far as we are concerned. I agree with the hon Member that the number of road tragedies is appalling at this time. I might add that 80 road deaths to date this year compared to 54 at the end of May last year is not acceptable at all.

Mr John Dallat: I welcome the additional number of road safety education officers and the Minister’s own personal commitment to improvements in road safety. Can we expect him to bring before the House, at an early stage, a comprehensive plan for dealing with the overall problem of carnage on the roads which, over the last three decades, has claimed more lives than the troubles?

Mr Sam Foster: Yes indeed, it is very much foremost in our minds. In conjunction with other groupings and the RUC we will be bringing out a road safety plan in the early autumn. This is a very important issue; something we have not overlooked; something which is vitally important to all because it affects people right across the community. The present death rate is totally and entirely unacceptable, and we cannot sit back and do nothing about it. However, no matter what resources we put in to improving the condition of the roads, the vital issue is the person behind the wheel. We must get the message across to these individuals. The figures are appalling.

Waste Disposal (Cross-Border Bodies)

Mr Arthur Doherty: 4. asked the Minister of the Environment to confirm that, in order to ensure the establishment of an integrated network of waste disposal installations, he will take account of and promote the work being undertaken by cross-border bodies such as the North-West Region Group, the Irish Central Border Area Network, the East Ireland Border Committee and others.
(AQO 264/99)

Mr Sam Foster: I am happy to provide this information. My Department has already supported the work of the North-West Region Cross-Border Group by providing grant aid through the European structural funds towards the development of a waste-management strategy. Any cross-border co-operation must, of course, take account of the waste-management strategy for Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom management plan for the export and import of wastes. The United Kingdom management plan is currently under review. I will ensure that Northern Ireland’s geography and the scope for cross-border initiatives are given due consideration in the review. The scope for improved waste management is also one of the issues identified for cross-border co-operation through the North/South Ministerial Council.

Mr Arthur Doherty: I thank the Minister for his reply. It is reassuring that he appreciates the contribution that the bodies referred to have already made, and are continuing to make, to the development and implementation of an effective waste-management strategy. In fact, in a number of ways, we are ahead of the game and very conscious of the need for partnership between all key sectors — something which is stressed quite often in the strategy document. I was prompted to ask this question because the waste-management strategy, excellent in many other ways, makes scarcely any reference to the relationships which must be developed between Northern Ireland partnerships and their relevant counterparts in the Republic of Ireland. The closest level of regional co-operation is essential, and for this reason I take comfort from the fact that the strategy gives district councils
"flexibility to form partnerships in accordance with their specific circumstances".

Mr Speaker: Order. I urge the Member to put his question.

Mr Arthur Doherty: Owing to a lack information on the management strategy I felt that a slight preamble was necessary.

Mr Speaker: The Member’s explanation is intriguing, but it is still out of order.

Mr Arthur Doherty: I would be very happy to affirm a one-word answer from the Minister so long as it is a positive one. Can I be assured that the undertakings given in the waste-management document will be honoured with regard to cross-border co-operation on this important matter?

Mr Sam Foster: I confirm that there is no hesitation about cross-border groupings within the two different jurisdictions. The grouping together of councils in border areas allows sensible co-operation to take place, meets EU requirements on waste management and enables economies of scale to be achieved.
I confirm that the waste plans required under the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 can be developed for cross-border groupings of councils, provided that they meet the requirements of the NorthernIreland waste-management strategy, which is a requirement of the European Landfill directive. The costs of waste management arise not from new waste-management strategy but from European directives on landfill sites.

Mr Speaker: The Member got more than the one word answer that he was looking for.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister tell us his plans for the cross-border element of waste management, recycling and the effects of pollution? Is there, or will there be, genuine co-operation and joint structures in place to deal with these issues on an all-island basis?

Mr Sam Foster: I have just said that there is no hesitation whatsoever about cross-border co-operation within the two separate jurisdictions. I confirm again that the waste plans required under the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 can be developed for cross-border groupings of councils, provided that they meet the requirements of the Northern Ireland waste-management strategy that we have issued.

Mr Derek Hussey: I am sure that the Minister, with his background, is well aware of the heavy costs involved when dealing with waste disposal. Does the Minister agree that a greater percentage of landfill tax should be retained in NorthernIreland, rather than allowing it to go back to the central Exchequer, provided that it is spent on proper waste disposal facilities? Will he lobby for that proposal?

Mr Sam Foster: I certainly welcome the hon Member’s suggestion. We could use the finances, but that is beyond our remit, and we have no control over such matters.

Mallusk Landfill Site

Mr Duncan Dalton: 5. asked the Minister of the Environment to confirm his intention to hold a public inquiry in relation to planning application number U/1995/0046 by UK Waste Ltd for an extension of the landfill site at Cottonmount Quarry, Mallusk.
(AQO 273/99)

Mr Donovan McClelland: 11. asked the Minister of the Environment how many objections, representations and queries the Department has received regarding the proposed landfill site at Mallusk, Co Antrim, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO 308/99)

Rev William McCrea: 16. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will undertake to reverse the decision of the Planning Service to approve the landfill site at Mallusk, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO314/99)

Mr Sam Foster: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I shall take questions 5, 11 and 16 together.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Is this a snub?

Mr Sam Foster: Not really — you get them often, but not this time.
The planning application is currently awaiting my decision. I recently met objectors and Newtownabbey Borough Council, and I hope to meet the applicant company soon. About 100 objections were raised against the proposal. Before reaching a conclusion about the way forward, I shall visit the site. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to make a statement now.

Rev William McCrea: Bearing in mind that —

Mr Speaker: Apologies to Mr Dalton. He may ask a supplementary question before DrMcCrea’s contribution.

Mr Duncan Dalton: On this occasion, I take precedence over Mr McCrea. Will the Minister confirm that it is in his Department’s power to call a public inquiry, such as the one to which I referred earlier? Will he undertake to give me in writing a legal opinion that his Department has such power? If he decides that it is not his decision —

Mr Speaker: Order. I have to advise the Member and the House that it is not in order to ask for a legal opinion to be provided by a Minister. That is not a valid question to ask.

Mr Duncan Dalton: Will the Minister undertake to ask his Department to say whether such a public inquiry would be possible? If not, will the Minister undertake to issue a new notice of opinion, so that the applicant can call a public appeals commission hearing on the matter, which can then be dealt with by a third party body?

Mr Sam Foster: There is provision to call for a public inquiry to take place, if necessary. I am aware of the calls for such an inquiry but, at present, I wish to reserve my position on the matter. As I said earlier, I have met different people, including hon Members, the Campaign against Landfill at Mallusk (CALM) and Newtownabbey Borough Council. I intend meeting the applicant, UK Waste Management Ltd shortly, and I shall consider carefully all representations received. I shall also visit the site before reaching a final decision.

Rev William McCrea: The residents of Mallusk have been campaigning under the name of CALM for an in-depth public inquiry on the proposed landfill site that will expose all the facts and myths to public scrutiny. Surely that is not much for any community to ask, considering the agony they have experienced with the vermin, smell and other problems. This is a modest and simple request that the Minister could direct to his Department and announce to the Assembly. If he will not accept an inquiry, will he overturn the opinion of his Department and refuse to approve this development?

Mr Sam Foster: A final decision has not yet been reached on this application. I have met the people from CALM, and we had a very affable meeting. I accepted and considered what they had to say, and we will continue to assess the matter. No hasty decision will be made, but I am not going to give a commitment to a public inquiry into the matter now.

Mr Jim Wilson: I am sure that, by now, the Minister is aware that the only people supporting the planning application are the site owners. Is he aware of the force of the argument against this site? Those against the application include the entire community at Mallusk, all elected representatives in the House and the councillors. Can he assure us that this will be an important consideration when he and his Department make up their minds about the future of the dumping site at Mallusk?

Mr Sam Foster: I am fully aware of the people’s great concern, and that will not be ignored. However, my Department has to look at the bigger picture. As I have said, we are still looking at this application, and as yet no decision has been made. Every representation that has been made to me and my Department will be carefully considered.

Local Government Elections

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: 7. asked the Minister of the Environment to assure the Assembly that local government elections planned for next year will proceed unhindered, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO294/99)

Mr Sam Foster: This is not a matter for my Department. It is, as I understand it, an excepted matter.

Mr Speaker: Where a Minister can rightly make such a response, there is no provision for asking a supplementary question.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Is the Minister running away from answering a question about the failure of his party to call an election on this issue?

Mr Speaker: Order. What the Minister has said is entirely correct, and as a result there can be no supplementary questions. It may well be the case, given that reply, that the Business Office cannot accept further questions on that issue.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the matter is an excepted one, why was the question accepted? The questions were printed over a week ago, so surely there was plenty of time for Members to be informed of this in advance rather than having to wait to have the question dismissed by the Minister in such an offhand way.

Mr Speaker: The Member should understand that that would have deprived him of the opportunity of making the very point that he has made. Questions are put down; they are published immediately; and the Marshalled List is published at a later stage.

Planning Applications (Economic Development)

Mr David Ford: 8. asked the Minister of the Environment what steps he will take to ensure that major planning applications with an obvious economic development benefit in job creation and urban regeneration will be expedited swiftly through planning procedures.
(AQO286/99)

Mr Sam Foster: I acknowledge the Member’s concern. The planning system is critical to the proper regulation of economic and social development. The Planning Service has established specialist teams to help speed up the processing of all major development proposals. It is currently allocating additional resources in order to determine planning applications more quickly. I will continue to draw attention to the resource requirements of the Planning Service in the context of the overall Northern Ireland budget.

Mr David Ford: I thank the Minister for his reply. In the past, he has acknowledged on a number of occasions that there are major delays in the planning process because of staff shortages in his Department. Does he agree that it is a disgrace that schemes with major potential benefits for economic development — such as the Belfast International Airport scheme, which is with his Department at the moment — are being lost because of terrible delays in implementing plans and getting any kind of decision from his Department?

Mr Sam Foster: I am aware of this problem. Within the Department we are seeking ways and means of processing applications more quickly. However, for the Member’s information, these things are not particularly easy. Planning is a long-drawn-out process because of the statutory constraints process, the complexities of the development proposals, the requirements for consultation, the extent of public representations received, and the need or otherwise for a public inquiry, as in the planning applications for landfill referred to earlier. Major development proposals with economic benefits often have significant environmental impact, which has to be properly considered before decisions can be taken.

Mr Speaker: It is now four o’clock. The overrun will have been caused by a series of quite legitimate points of order. Lest the precedent give advantage to the Minister who comes third in the list for questioning, I shall continue to allow the full 30 minutes of questions.

Beaches

Mr Seamus Close: 9. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will initiate a review of beaches to ensure that visitors to our coastal resorts will find them attractive and safe.
(AQO 285/99)

Mr Sam Foster: My Department, through its Environment and Heritage Service, is responsible for monitoring and reporting to the European Commission on the quality of bathing water at the 16beaches in Northern Ireland that fall within the scope of the European directive on bathing water quality (76/160/EEC). I am pleased to say that all 16 met the mandatory standards in the 1999 bathing season. In addition, eight of those beaches, as well as three marinas, have qualified this year for a European blue flag. In administering the blue-flag scheme, the Tidy Northern Ireland group includes other criteria such as facilities, cleanliness and safety. In addition, the Marine Conservation Society arranges an annual survey of beaches around the British Isles, including beaches not eligible for blue-flag status. Based on these results, I am satisfied that visitors will find Northern Ireland’s beaches to be generally attractive and safe.

Mr Seamus Close: I thank the Minister for his reply. As we approach the holiday season and the weather improves, does he agree that we should have a blitz on our beaches to ensure that there is no litter, broken glass or tin cans? Go to any of our beaches and this is the type of thing I am particularly concerned about with young children.

Mr Sam Foster: Any concerns about the cleanliness or facilities of individual public beaches should be referred to the relevant district council. Having said that, I would be happy to have my Department investigate any beach at which the quality of bathing water is of concern or where there are litter problems.

Mr Speaker: We have now come to the end of the time for questions. Is MrPoots — [Interruption] I am afraid so, but you did get a question in earlier on, if I remember correctly. The time for questions is up. [Interruption] Indeed, but not even the Minister could respond at that speed.

Allowances to Members of the Assembly and Office Holders Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate resumed on Clause 3.

Mr John Fee: Some time ago, when I introduced the first Bill to be passed by the Assembly, I said that I was supping from a poisoned chalice. That poison is getting more virulent by the day.
The debate this morning was on amendment9. The amendment was meant to allay concerns about the content and effect of clause3.
We had some detailed and robust exchanges with the Finance and Personnel Committee — on a number of occasions they were held in public — and the Committee expressed very clearly its concerns about the flaws in clause3. We very much appreciate the work of the Committee’s Chairman and members.
It seems abundantly clear that there continues to be, on all sides of this Assembly, a deep, fundamental distaste for clause3, so I propose to remind Members why it is there and leave it to your good judgement as to what you want to do with it.
Members will recall that under paragraph 40, clause4 of the Northern Ireland Act of 1998 the Assembly Commission was charged with the task of ensuring that the Assembly was provided with the property, staff and services required for the Assembly’s purposes. That was the legislation passed in 1998.
In February 1999 this Assembly, in shadow form, unanimously endorsed the principle that we should abide by the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB), warts and all, sight unseen. That was recommended to the Assembly by MrPeter Robinson, and it was accepted unanimously. Subsequently, in March1999, Command Paper 4188 was published with the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body. Clause3, which the Assembly Commission felt duty-bound to bring forward to the Assembly for its decision, reflects paragraph97, recommendation27, of the review body’s report:
"It recommends that those in receipt of an additional salary in respect of any office held in the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly, who cease to hold that office, be entitled to a severance payment calculated in the same way as that available to Ministers and office holders in the Westminster Parliament."
I repeat those words because this morning there were charges that we had, in some way, departed from SSRB. We have not, yet there were severe charges laid against the Commission by Members of the Westminster Parliament, who have never raised any objections to this particular recommendation in another House. Therefore, in defence of the Assembly Commission, I say that we have diligently, to the letter of what we were charged to do under the Act, and in accordance with SSRB, brought forward these proposals for deliberation by the Assembly.
I said in Committee, when SeamusClose raised concerns about clause3, that I could not personally respond to him in any great detail because I shared his concerns. I, and the Commission, still do. Nonetheless, we have brought Members a recommendation; it is for deliberation, and it is up to them whether they wish to pursue it. I would like to think that we have left Members with an understanding that the Assembly Commission will continue to do, as far as it can, its duty to bring forward proposals, schemes and legislation where necessary for Members’ deliberation even though those proposals, schemes, and so on may be difficult, unpopular and detailed. I think one can tell from my point of view that we are becoming increasingly agnostic on this clause, so for the purposes of ending this particular part of the debate, I want to give notice — I may be duty-bound to move amendment9 — that I will not be moving any further amendments to this clause.

Mr Speaker: We must take the amendment to amendment9 first — that is, amendment13 standing in the name of MrLeslie. Moved or not moved?

Mr James Leslie: Not moved.

Mr Speaker: Amendment9: moved or not moved?

Mr John Fee: Not moved.

Mr Speaker: When an amendment has become the property of the Assembly by being debated, its withdrawal requires the leave of the Assembly. Does the Member have the leave of the Assembly? He has begged leave to withdraw the amendment.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will the Assembly have an opportunity to vote on clause 3?

Mr Speaker: Yes. Even if all the amendments in this group fall, there is still an amendment that clause 3 not stand part, and there can be a debate on that if the House wishes. This is purely a question of the amendments that were down under this grouping, and the lead amendment was amendment 9.
Mr Fee has begged leave of the Assembly to withdraw amendment 9. Is leave given?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker: I will need to go through the rest of the amendments formally, even though MrFee has given notice that he will not be pressing them. We will come to the rest of the amendments when we vote on this, and he has given indication that he will not move them. We will therefore move to the motion that clause 3 stand part and the amendment in the name of Mr Molloy and Colleagues.

Mr Francie Molloy: A Cheann Comhairle. As I said earlier, the Finance and Personnel Committee has concluded that the allowance to Members should be amended, omitting clause 3. The Committee was content that a person who ceases to be a Member should receive an adequate allowance to help them adjust to non-Assembly life, although I had many reservations about that on a personal basis. The Committee was also content that Members should receive financial assistance for help with outstanding costs. This, of course, would have to be properly monitored. It relates to cost and not a lump sum as in clause 4.
However, the Committee was concerned about the aim of clause 3. This would entitle office holders such as Ministers, Presiding Officers and other officers specified in the Standing Orders to the equivalent of three months’ pay, and it would be paid when they ceased to hold office. The re-elected Assembly would then take that up over a set period. The Committee concluded that a Member should not be entitled to an allowance just because he had lost his official position, especially when the Member could also receive allowances on leaving the Assembly. The Committee therefore decided that clause 3 should be deleted from the Bill. On behalf of the Committee I recommend that the Assembly should vote against the motion that clause 3 stand part of the Bill. A Cheann Comhairle that concludes my remarks.

Mr Peter Weir: I find myself in rather strange company given the reference at the start of this to — [Laughter] I should point out that I am not talking about the persons sitting on either side of me. I am referring to other Colleagues who were moving this amendment at the beginning of this debate. We must realise that we are not debating either this Bill or clause 3 in a vacuum. We are debating them against the background of growing public concern over the perceived wastage of money since the creation of the Assembly. There is a feeling that Assembly Members are like pigs getting their snouts into the trough. This has been fuelled to some extent by concerns over the growth in the number of Departments, and the additional expenditure involved was seen as unnecessary. There was an unfortunate impression given in the early days of the Assembly when one of our first items of business was a large pay rise for Members. That has created a great deal of public concern, and Members should be aware of that. When we are dealing with financial matters that concern the Assembly and its internal workings, we need to do that with an added sensitivity to that public perception. Where there is an opportunity for us to find some way to prune expenditure and to show that money is not being given out unnecessarily, we should take it.
When the Committee looked at the Bill, it did not have any problems with the other items contained in it. It was seen to be perfectly reasonable as a resettlement grant for Members who had lost their seats or indeed a retirement or winding-up allowance. These were all seen to be in the natural course of events.
However, there was a great deal of controversy about clause 3. There are allowances for Members who simply lose their seats — indeed, if a Minister were to lose his seat, he would obtain the same allowances as any other Member. However, clause 3, in effect, puts in an additional allowance for office holders who are removed from their post to become Back-Benchers once again. This seems to me and to many others as being, in effect, like a golden handshake.
When we are dealing with the public purse, however small the amount concerned, we need to be very careful. The Assembly should resist the paying of some additional allowance to office holders — simply because they have been in some way demoted. I find no logical reason for clause 3. There is no logical reason why we should be voting for this extra money. It has been said that we are following the example of the SSRB. While that should act as an example to us, we should not treat it as such holy script that we follow every single word of it. We must apply some common sense to this matter. Common sense clearly dictates that this is an unnecessary allowance, and one that will simply further the impression of the Assembly and Assembly Members as being self-gratifying, as people in it just for their own ends.
We need to look at the example that the Assembly is setting and to support the amendment to get rid of clause 3. The Bill without clause 3 would be perfectly adequate for the purposes for which it was intended, and I urge all Members to oppose clause 3 and the golden handshakes.

Mr Seamus Close: I get the sense that clause 3 is now holed below the waterline. I sincerely trust that that having happened, all Members will now clamber aboard the Good Ship Principle and be prepared to stand up and face the taxpayers — the voters who put them here.
When I first raised this issue in the Committee on 20 January, I said that the more I listened to the reasoning behind clause 3, the more I found myself disliking it, and the less able I felt I was to justify it. When you strip it all away, there really is no justification for that clause. When the question was posed more directly as to the purpose of clause 3, we were told, quite clearly and specifically, that it was to cushion the reduction in a large salary. To cushion the reduction in a large salary? I do not have a problem with a Minister or an office holder having the salary to which he or she is entitled. We, collectively as an Assembly, want them to be seen to be doing that job and doing it to the best of their ability, and, therefore, attracting a commensurate salary. I do not have a problem with that. But in what other walk of life do you receive a cushioning of your salary — for example, if you are reduced a grade in the Civil Service? I do not think so. If you lose your job you can get a severance pay, but this is about cushioning a salary.
I pay tribute to the sponsor of the Bill, who, when he appeared in front of the Committee, made it absolutely plain, as he has done so again today, that he did have difficulties with it, that the argument was that the standing by the SSRB recommendations was in many respects the best "protection", I think was the word used by others, for the Assembly.
When we look at the use of the word "protection", who or what are we trying to protect ourselves from? Is saying that you need protection not some sort of a defensive mechanism? I want to be able to stand in front of the electorate, without the need for any defensive mechanisms, knowing that I can justify — that is the key word — whatever legislation I have voted for in relation to financial matters. Every Member, be he office holder or non-office holder, should be able to go out and hold his head high by way of justifying that which he supports.
There is no justification — none whatsoever — for the existence of clause3, and I urge, once again, Members who have now come aboard the Good Ship Principle to stand by their principles and go out and face the taxpayer saying "We did not slavishly follow the recommendations of any outside organisation when we could not justify the expenditure of your money". The best way to demonstrate that is to ensure that clause3 is thrown out.

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, Mr Speaker. I am not going to go all over the arguments again; I simply want to make two points. First, I would like clarification from yourself. MrFee did not move a number of the amendments, but I presume that he was acting on behalf of the Commission. I am curious to know how he was able to decide not to move those amendments, because my party Colleague was not aware of any Commission decision to not move the amendments. I am happy that the amendments were not moved, and I want to stress that I am not making a personal attack on MrFee — indeed, the minutes of the meetings in January and February will show that I made the point that the Commission has a difficult job. The question, purely for my own reference, is by what authority he withdrew them?
Secondly, MrFee said that there was no departure from the SSRB recommendations. In fact, there are, from his own amendments. Again, I am happy with those amendments, in recognition of the arguments that we made.

Mr Speaker: For the benefit of Hansard, I ask the Member to come to the podium. It will be impossible to record his words unless he approaches a microphone.

Mr John Fee: As I understand the precise procedure — and I could be acting under misapprehension — the Bill that I sponsored has the status of a private Member’s Bill. Therefore the Member is quite right: I took the decision without reference back to the Commission.

Mr Alex Maskey: I am glad to hear that the majority of Members are opposed to clause3 standing part of the Bill — for all of the reasons clearly outlined in the minutes of the meetings going back into January and February — on the basis that it would be improper to give people an increase in salary for being an office holder, and then give them a handshake when they leave that position. I am happy that most Members conclude that that would not be an appropriate piece of legislation.

Mr James Leslie: I pointed out earlier what I regarded as being a series of inadequacies in the drafting of clause3, and MrFee and I sought to correct those with our series of amendments. However, it has become clear in the course of the debate that the House has turned its face against this clause and, rather than go through the process of forcing each amendment to the vote, we have decided not to press them to the vote. The consequence of that is that clause3, as it stands in the Bill, is, in my opinion, very inadequate — not least because it did not take cognisance of a period of dissolution and could have accidentally triggered the payment of allowances even when it was not intended to do so. With those amendments not going forward, it is appropriate to support this amendment so that the clause does not stand part of the Bill.
I would take this opportunity to correct one or two exaggerated claims about the size of these allowances that I have heard in the media. One quarter of a ministerial stipend comes to about £8,000. I have heard larger figures quoted, and I hope people can be accurate about these things in the future. A Chairman’s extra stipend is £10,000. The allowance payable under clause 3 would be £2,500. These are not excessive sums of money.
I repeat my earlier point that people lose office without notice. People in the private sector would definitely receive notice and, quite possibly, compensation related to the length of time for which the office had been held.
A number of interesting sentiments have been expressed in the debate. We heard very little from the DUP about its intention, expressed a few weeks ago, to amass a war chest. The methodology by which it might have done that is clearly not going to be available to it through this clause in any event. I wonder if we had pushed through the amendment, which I believe would have had sufficient support in the House, and opposed MrMolloy’s amendment, which we are debating at the moment, would the parties to my right have fully whipped their vote to ensure that Mr Molloy’s amendment went through. Unfortunately, we are not going to be in a position to find out.
Finally, if in future, when commentators invite the House to amend any further recommendations made by the Senior Salaries Review Body, I will not be leading the riposte. I will look to others who have identified themselves in the course of the debate. I will support the amendment.

Mr Derek Hussey: A lot of what I intended to say has already been said. The Chairman and members of the Finance and Personnel Committee will remember that I could not bring myself to support the inclusion of clause 3 and that, in fact, I abstained. I now find myself in the situation where I must express my support for the motion before the House. We entered this Chamber on an equal basis. Nobody was above anybody else — yourself included, Sir. We came in on a level footing and when we leave we should also leave on a level footing.

Mr Peter Robinson: I suppose, together with others, I should probably have commenced by declaring an interest. However, to the extent that I am speaking against what that perceived interest might be, I am sure I will be forgiven.
First, it is worth pointing out that I do not hold a ministerial salary. As part of an agreement reached by my party, ministerial salaries and all the financial benefits of office are put into what the previous Member referred to as the war chest, which is for the defeat of the First Minister’s team at the earliest possible opportunity, if he does not run scared and try to get elections cancelled. The basis of the proposition was that we would never intend to take from public sources any funds by way of severance pay. It has never been in the party’s mind and it simply would not have happened. We would have declined such funding. Nonetheless, the issue of principle does arise. I really do not know what Mr Leslie was talking about when he said that we will not know. We will know. We will be voting as to whether clause 3 stands part or not.
As things stand at the moment, the reality is that if this Bill were to be passed, severance pay would be given to Ministers when they went out of office. We will be voting against that. There is one very clear reason why that should be so. The only people who find themselves in an awkward position through no fault of their own, are the Assembly Commission members, who have to carry out, to the letter of the law, the vote of the Assembly, a vote which everybody would recognise as sensible in terms of giving guidance to the Commission with regard to where Members stand in relation to pay and allowances.
This is very different. If an Assembly Member were to lose his position in the Assembly then effectively he would be unemployed. I can see that in those circumstances there might be a justification for making some funds available as an equivalent to a redundancy payment for that person to find an alternative job — something that would not be easy for many Assembly Members. That is not because of any lack of ability on their part, rather it is because their faces may not fit easily into a number of organisations after they have become so publicly well known, or notorious.
This is not the position as far as office holders are concerned. If they lose the position that they are holding in the Assembly or in the Government, they fall back to being Assembly Members, with all of the rights and entitlements of every other Assembly Member. There is no hardship involved. I do not think, therefore, that it is hard to justify not giving them this additional benefit. In general, we should be cautious. We have a guiding principle set down from the earliest days about the SSRB report. That should be regarded as something of a ceiling rather than a requirement on every occasion, and we are still entitled as an Assembly to look sensibly at the operation of each aspect. I believe that in this case there is absolute justification for voting against clause 3 standing part.
It would be useful, Mr Speaker, if you were to advise us on the mechanism being used. As I understand it, the amendment that we are presently dealing with has been put down by a number of Members, if you like, as a mechanism to allow us to debate the issue, which we would not otherwise have had the opportunity to do. I am not sure whether they intend to withdraw that amendment and allow the full vote to take place on the clause stand part. Whichever they do, am I right in assuming that if their amendment does not succeed, it would be a case of the clause being put by way of a clause stand part and that we can vote against it at that stage?

Mr Speaker: I should perhaps give a word of explanation about the procedure to address the point that MrRobinson makes. Following this debate dealing with all of the issues that relate to clause3, I will move through each of the amendments that have been put. Two have been put in the name of MrMolloy, as Chairman of the relevant Committee, a number in the name of MrLeslie and a number in the name of MrFee. I will move through each of those and ask if they are moved or not moved. From what has been said, one would expect that they would simply respond: "Not moved".
Amendment 3, standing in the name of MrMolloy, MrWeir, MrClose and MrMaskey, has in fact already been moved. If the Member in the lead wished to withdraw it and the other Members agreed, it could be withdrawn by leave of the Assembly. We would then vote on clause3 stand part, and Members would vote as they choose. If the amendment were pressed at that stage and were successful then there would be no clause3 to vote upon. It would have been removed so there would be no subsequent vote.
If, however, the amendment were not carried the vote would be that clause stand part and Members could then vote against that. Slightly peculiarly there could be one vote or two votes. There could indeed be only one vote if the Member decided, and the other Members agreed, to take leave of the Assembly to withdraw it. So it would be a matter of paying acute attention to precisely how it proceeds.
We would then proceed to amendment 12 which deals with clause4. Then there are two other amendments which are consequential amendments in the event of clause3 not standing part of the Bill at that stage.
I now ask MrMolloy if he wishes to respond at this stage in respect of amendment3.

Mr Francie Molloy: A Cheann Comhairle, thank you very much. The question at issue is whether it is appropriate to pay such allowances to Members simply because they had a privileged position in the Assembly, and it is my view and that of the Committee of Finance and Personnel, that this allowance should not form part of the scheme. I have listened to Members’ comments, and I welcome the fact that other Members have come to share the Committee’s view. From the outset, it was fairly widely held among us.
As MrMaskey pointed out earlier, the Assembly is different from Westminster in that over 50% of its Members are office holders and as such would be entitled to allowances if they lost or changed their positions. I should like to remind MrSammyWilson that these amendments were put forward on 10February 2000, a long time before he thought up his scheme of rotating Ministers, so they are not in reaction to anyone else’s actions. I welcome the conversion to our Committee’s position, which I also recommend as the position of my party.
A number of Members referred to the SSRB report and said that we should not deviate from it. However, if we did not have the opportunity to amend, clearly there would be no purpose in having a Committee Stage. The whole idea behind it is that people can suggest amendments and changes on which Members of the Assembly have the right to vote.
A number of points were made by MrWeir about wider public opinion, which, it is clear, is against these unnecessary allowances. MrClose said that the SSRB report was no justification for paying these allowances, and if people need to have some justification, that speaks for itself. MrMaskey said that there was no need for office holders to have a golden handshake when they leave their positions, for they would be continuing as Assembly Members and getting allowances. MrLeslie spoke about clause 3, and he is in support of our amendment, since he is opposed to clause 3’s being part of the Bill and I welcome that.
I recommend that we have a vote in support of removing clause 3 from the Bill.

Mr Speaker: We shall now proceed to the amendments relating to clause 3. I move perhaps slightly outside the Speaker’s normal remit to remind you that amendment 8 was the subject of the first debate, not of the second.
Is amendment 1, standing in the name of Chairman of the Finance and Personnel Committee, moved or not moved?

Mr Francie Molloy: Not moved.

Mr Speaker: Is amendment 11 moved or not moved?

Mr John Fee: Not moved.

Mr Speaker: Is amendment 14 moved or not moved?

Mr James Leslie: Not moved.

Mr Speaker: Is amendment 10 moved or not moved?

Mr John Fee: Not moved.

Mr Speaker: Are amendments 4 and 15 moved or not moved?

Mr James Leslie: Not moved.

Mr Speaker: Is amendment 8 moved or not moved?

Mr John Fee: Not moved.

Mr Speaker: The Member may wish to reconsider that. Amendment 8 is a technical consequential amendment, which may need to be passed. I am moving outside what the Speaker would normally do, but we are all learning.

Mr John Fee: Sorry for my confusion.
Amendment (No 8) made: 
"Determination 2000, made by the Secretary of State under section 48 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 by virtue of paragraph 9 of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000." — [Mr Fee]

Mr Speaker: Is amendment 2 moved or not moved?

Mr Francie Molloy: Not moved.

Mr Speaker: Amendment No 3, whose effect would be that clause 3 would not stand part of the Bill: moved or not moved?
Amendment made:

Mr Speaker: The clause having been removed, there is no requirement to make a decision about whether it stand part.
Clause 4 (Winding up allowance)

Mr John Fee: Amendment 12 is a further technical amendment to address the fact that the Pensions Bill will not be proceeded with as the Secretary of State introduced a pension scheme for Members by way of a determination while devolved government was suspended. The Pensions Bill contained a provision to make the Assembly Commission a rule-making authority. This provision is still required to allow the Commission to vary the limit on the amount of the winding-up allowances contained in clause 4 in line with changes to the office cost allowances. The winding-up allowance is set at one third of the office cost allowance.
Amendment (No 12) made:
"( ) The Commission shall be a rule-making authority for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (NI12) and accordingly in Part I of the Schedule to that Order after the entry relating to the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission there shall be inserted —
‘The Northern Ireland Assembly Commission’." — [Mr John Fee]
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 (Short title)
Amendment (No 5) made:
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Long title
Amendment (No 6) made: 
Long Title, as amended, agreed to:

Mr Speaker: This concludes the Consideration Stage of the Bill. It stands referred to the Speaker for a decision upon competence and will return at an appropriate time.

Assembly Members’ Pensions scheme

Resolved:
That the following Members are appointed as the Trustees of the Assembly Members’ Pension Scheme: MrJohnDallat, MrJohnKelly, MrDavidMcClarty, MrDenis Watson and MrJimWells. — [Rev Robert Coulter]
The sitting was suspended at 4.45 pm.